At the beginning of each year the Australian Bureau of Meteorology publishes an ‘Annual Climate Statement’ with a summary of rainfall and temperatures for the previous year. The statement for 2007 includes the following brief overview:
* Australian annual mean temperature for 2007 was 6th warmest on record (0.67°C above normal).
* Australian annual mean maximum temperature for 2007 was 0.73°C above normal and annual mean minimum temperature 0.61°C above normal.
* Highest on record annual mean and maximum temperatures across much of the south.
* Warmest year on record for Murray Darling Basin, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria.
* Australian annual mean rainfall slightly more than average (25 mm above normal).
* Average to above average annual rainfall across northern and central Australia, average to below average annual rainfall in the southwest, mixed results in the remainder.
* Long-term droughts persist in the far southwest and southeast.
You can read the full report here: http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20080103.shtml
[I have a piece in the latest IPA Review entiled ‘Cyclones, rainfall and temperatures: Does Australia have a climate crisis?’. It’s not available online yet – but for $55 pa you can subsubcribe to the magazine.]
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
It’s a bit hard to take the Bureau’s claims about man-made warming seriously when the temperature anomaly in January was +0.01, in June -1.54 (coldest since 1950) and December -0.12. It seems like there’s plenty of variable forces that are not terribly well understood.
What was cloud cover like in relation to previous years (not just overall but lower, mid and upper)? Note that average mean is the arithmetic mean of the average max and average min. Both are high susceptible to small changes in cloud cover.
The BoM has the technology to provide the average daily temperatures based on readings at 30 minute intervals (or even less), so why don’t they use it? According to a paper from the UK’s CRU about corrections to their temperature the difference in Australia’s mean temperature is about 0.2 degrees between the two methods.
What about wind direction and speed compared to other years? As Melbourne folk can tell you, winds from NE to NW bring hot days, and Perth people get hot NE winds, so wind is an important factor.
John the warming is not explainable by winds, rainfall or El Nino/La Nina. Australia has got wetter (that should have cooled us down), we see warm years in El Nino/neutral and La Nina years, and our winds haven’t changed on a continental scale.
Relating a continental and global scale trend to your experiences on a day to day basis makes no physical sense.
As you know, Victoria has experience by far its warmest year on record. So has Melbourne. You live in Melbourne Victoria. Climate change has come to your backyard.
” Climate change has come to your backyard”—-
and to everyone else in the world, just as it should.
What an idiotic comment.
The statement ” Climate change has come to your backyard” is correct fot my backyard. After years of drought (less than average rains) we are getting good rains and the subsequent exuberant vegetative growth is a change from the burnt offerings of the last years.
So, its a change for the better.
Of course controlling increased vegetation is another cost and with herbicides becoming more expensive….
David,
It’s the day-to-day weather that combines over time to make the “climate” in any given location.
I’m not asking whether winds have changed on a continental scale. I want to know how they have changed over time at the locations that you say have warmed.
Why are you unable to provide details about wind shift when I demonstrated that last summer there was a strong correlation between warm days in Melbourne and northerly winds?
I also wonder about how much solar radiation received this year compared to previous years. More sunshine would obvious cause the temperature to be elevated.
I just checked the temperature in every month for Victoria and it was struck by the variation shown in the last few years. It would be an odd greenhouse gas that at roughly the same concentration causes more warming in some years than others.
I also am starting to wonder if a lot of the regional variation in temperature is not simply a case of tropical heat being moved away from the tropics rather than being lost, via convection and radiation, from the equatorial zone. Nothing in the annual report or your posting refutes this.
Malcolm – I’m not bothered about the statement “climate change has come to your backyard” because as far as I can tell it always has and always will. David is just being like countless others and substituting the words “climate change” for “man-made climate change”. He knows it’s not accurate to do so.
Sorry David, I forgot the most important question.
How much money did the Bureau of Meteorology receive in the last five years for research projects that assume or try to confirm a human influence on warming?
I would be surprised if the BoM received any money – they just record data.
The BoM Annual Climate Statement accepts that the “overwhelming view from climate scientists contributing to the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that most of the global and Australian warming over the last 50 years is directly attributable to human emissions of greenhouse gases”.
After 20 years of intense research and the expenditure of billions of dollars, the theory of anthropogenic global warming still lingers in a limbo of probability.
John you can obtain wind analyse for yourself via http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cdc/data.ncep.reanalysis.html or alternatively use the KNMI climate explorer tool (try google for the url). You can also email webclim@bom.gov.au for the full set of wind data for Australia. Every single observation ever made for Australia is available to you.
I look forward to seeing your analysis.
>After 20 years of intense research and the expenditure of billions of dollars, the theory of anthropogenic global warming still lingers in a limbo of probability.
All science should be rooted in probability. Anything that is not is faith. The current international consensus is that it is very likely that most of the recent warming is due to human activity. That’s greater than 95% confidence that MOST (not some, a bit, or whatever) is caused by us.
When faced with this type analysis, the scientific thing to do is a cost-benefit analysis with is basic stuff. This has been done by the IPCC, Stern etc. but of course the answer proved too awkward for many (who hide behind discount rates and the like).
Perhaps you might tell us what probability you seek (chrisgo) before you belief AGW poses a risk requiring a policy response? This is a serious question, which cuts to the heart of whether one is really sceptical or driven by faith/ideology/or $$$.
This was recently discussed in a previous thread.
The leading statements of The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) are:
*Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
*Most (over 50%) of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (over 90%) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.
(In IPCC statements “most” means greater than 50%, “likely” means at least a 66% likelihood, and “very likely” means at least a 90% likelihood).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
And David, how will you explain to a family in Africa that they should not have the same access that you enjoy to the benefits of science and technology, because it may or may not have a marginal affect on the climate.
Good luck with that one.
chrisgo – “And David, how will you explain to a family in Africa that they should not have the same access that you enjoy to the benefits of science and technology, because it may or may not have a marginal affect on the climate.”
And now for the strawman. How will you explain to your descendants if drastic climate change does happen how you failed to take action when it could have made a difference.
Even without climate change action how do you explain to a person in Africa how we have so much when they have so little.
Lets not pretend this is about poor people in Africa. This is about us maintaining our incredibly high standard of living with all the waste that goes along with it no matter what the harm to the environment. This standard of living is only made possible by the profligate use fossil fuels that we are using at a mad rate and poor people in Africa will never get despite having quite extensive oil reserves – probably the last remaining.
If you care about people in Africa then renewables are the best thing for them and they are embracing them at village level that may put them in a better position that we end up when fossil fuels become tight.
Australia is a fairly small part of the world, so what the temperature is doing here doesnt do much as evidence – either way.
However the global RSS MSU data is now out and 2007 seems to be the coolest year since 1997, which sure makes a nonsense of all those early 2007 forecasts that it would be the hottest year ever. Temperatures have now declined the last 2 years in sucession and in recent months the decline has accelerated – due to La Nina. There is a pretty good chance 2008 will see a third sucessive decline – the BOM thinks La Nina will probably last until at least the beginning of Autumn.
There’s an interesting article on Lubos Motl’s site (motls.blogspot.com) about it. Motl is a skeptic
One must remember that the BoM no longer only measures and records rainfall and temperature data etc….It has now become an active supporter and advocate of “man made global warming”. In fact an active promoter of ‘AGW’, (the lie), under the guise of climate change, (the truth;) climate change has been with us since the world began.
It is essential for the ongoing existance of the global warming industry, that each succeeding year is promoted as being a record hot one, or at least right up there with them. Where does truth come into it?..What’s truth? The main thing is to scare the masses.
The BoM has a clear bias towards publishing temp. data which promotes the AGW Faith, and can be very quiet on it’s own data that doesn’t support the cause.
Just as an accountant, lacking integrity, can play with figures to produce a false Balance Sheet, one can only suspect that the BoM has done likewise with it’s own data. Warwick Hughes caught them out two years ago, when they were trying to promote 2005 as ‘the hottest year on record’ The NASA-GISS figures for major Australian centres for that year proved the lie then.
In our own area in central NSW, our temp. records show that it is nowhere near the hottest year on record, and our figures are supported by the Bureau’s own data.
Ender might like to explain why his beloved windmills are allowed to chop up wedgetails
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/green-power-is-black-hole-for-rare-eagles/2008/01/02/1198949900016.html
Hmmn, Australia is 780 million ha. NSW is 80 million, Vic is 25 million and SA is 97 million for a total of 202 million ha or a princely 26% of the country, at best. But was that all of SA or just part of SA?
So why did BoM feel the need to report that 26% of the country had its warmest year on record? Clearly, 74% of the country did not have its warmest year.
And when can we see this series adjusted for El Chichon and Pinatubo?
And given that such a big deal deal is made about our claim to a large portion of Antarctica and adjacent oceans, when can we expect a properly weighted series covering all of that territorial claim?
rog – “Ender might like to explain why his beloved windmills are allowed to chop up wedgetails”
Because they were put in the wrong place by people that did not study the wildlife properly.
Mind you 11 wedgetails is probably abut 2% of the ones that were killed by habitat destruction of old growth forests, or shot by farmers, or flew into microwave towers and mobile phone towers, or hit by cars or killed by running into tall glass buildings however rog does not mention these ones only the ones ‘chopped up’ by badly sited wind turbines are important.
Bill,
Looking at the Figure 2 on Lubos’ site the RSS-MSU rankings 2007 is the 7th hottest year this century.
Interesting
>So why did BoM feel the need to report that 26% of the country had its warmest year on record? Clearly, 74% of the country did not have its warmest year.
Sid it is astonishing that fully one quarter of Australia had its hottest year in a century last year. There can be no serious debate when you can’t accept basic facts.
Chrisgo, it is the poor who will be most harmed by climate change. If you were really concerned about them, you would go away and do some serious research instead of throwing up ill founded strawmen.
>And given that such a big deal deal is made about our claim to a large portion of Antarctica and adjacent oceans, when can we expect a properly weighted series covering all of that territorial claim?
Ian Antarctica has insufficient data to produce an average. Still, the limited data we have suggests the continent has cooled slightly or stayed at about a constant temperature over the last 25 years while the sub-Antarctic has warmed very rapidly. The odd behaviour down their is related to the southern annular mode as discussed a few time on this blog.
You can see the sea data for Australia at http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rain®ion=aus&season=0112
. The oceans are warming like the land but a little slower, which is expected under the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Hope this helps.
David – Thank you for the URL. I shall take a good look at it some time very soon. I’m busy at the moment writing two papers.
You said here in another posting “The current international consensus is that it is very likely that most of the recent warming is due to human activity. That’s greater than 95% confidence that MOST (not some, a bit, or whatever) is caused by us.”
You should be well aware that
(a) the 95% is a subjective figure, not a mathematically derived value, produced by the authors of chapter 9 of IPCC 4AR.
(b) chapter 9’s claim that there had been a significant human influence on climate over the last 50 years was explicitly supported by just 5 reviewers of 62 who did comment on that chapter.
That’s an UNDERwhelming consensus in my book.
Sure that chapter was approved at the WG I plenary but that plenary is for government representatives and most governments had already signed and ratified Kyoto so did anyone really expect them to seriously object.
By the way, who was Australia’s representative (or should that be plural?) and the IPCC plenaries?
Just for info, I will not respond to any more questions as this has already taken up too much of my personal time. If you have questions for me as an individual please email davidarfonjones@yahoo.com. If you have questions or comments about the Bureau’s climate change analyses please email webclim@bom.gov.au .
All data are available free of charge or at low cost, and you are most welcome to perform your own analyses to prove or disprove things.
Regards,
David
http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/budget/2006/pbs/bom-s5.html
For those who have asked about the BOM budget the figures are all in the above url
It appears that the annual commitment is $239m.
David ‘there can be no serious debate’ when the BoM ‘cherrypicks’ it’s own data to support it’s activist position on AGW.
How can the general public place any confidence in the Bureau’s claim that a qr. of Australia experienced the warmest year on record in 2007, after the BoM claim that 2005 being the hottest was proved false?
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool15.htm
By such actions, as well as your public activist position in support of “AGW”, the BoM continues to risk its prestige and credibility.
How unfortunate that David has learned what most of us have learned – defending one’s position can take up a lot of time.
I just took a look at the archived pressure maps (thanks BoM – better data than most countries!) and the “timeseries” data for the mean temperature in Eastern Australia.
The pressure maps are daily and I did the simple thing of counting the total number of Highs and total number of Lows centred (per the BoM “x”) within the state boundaries of Qld and NSW.
May 2007: Temp= +2.38), Highs=9, Lows=1 (borderline)
May 2006: Temp= -1.6, Highs=3 (1 borderline), Lows=0
June 2007: Temp= -1.50, Highs=3, Lows=1
June 2005: Temp= +1.7, Highs=7, Lows=0
Sure a better analysis could be done (pressure cell tracks, cold fronts, troughs etc.) but it certainly looks like temperature is a consequence of pressure cells, as any 1st year meteorology student would know.
All it takes is a few months of pressure cells in the right place and the annual average temperature will go up and down accordingly.
So where’s the human influence on climate??
Two “straw man” references within a few posts – must come from some ‘how to’ site, like ‘how to win arguments against AGW deniers’.
In both cases the phrase has been misemployed – perhaps david could take his own advice and spend a few moments of his valuable time to consult a dictionary.
Sub-Saharan African countries are already greatly dependent on oil exports and are likely to be more so in future, with China showing much interest.
Nigeria is the 11th largest producer in the world; Angola is highly dependent with oil accounting for 40% of GDP; Sudan has potential for much more light sweet crude; Equatorial Guinea (90% of exports); Gabon (40% GDP); Republic of Congo (90% of exports); all these countries (and others) have unrealized potential oil exports which could provide a great foundation for future development and prosperity if only they could resolve internal conflict and gross corruption.
Although paying lip service to limiting ‘greenhouse’ emissions, China and India, for instance, have no intention of curtailing their industrial development and would be willing customers.
For the so-called developed world to stand in their way, in order to soothe their own ‘prosperity guilt’ as expressed through the AGW mass neurosis, would be immoral and futile.
What your numbers about Africa’s existing and potential oil wealth tells me, chrisgo, is that it won’t be long before there’s either a Terror Event perpetrated by black fundamentalist Africanist who hate western civilization, or else incontestable proof of WMDs somewhere near all that oil, necessitating yet another Coalition Of The Willing to bring democracy and economic freedom and prosperity to The Heart of Darkness. After all, what do you think all that buzz in Somalia has always been all about?
The U.S. will not let China and India get any closer to African oil that it will let them get to Middle Eastern and South West Asian oil.
It can’t. For the War of the 21st Century, between China and The West will be won by the army that controls the oil.
That’s what Team Cheney was sent to DC to do back in 2000, and he delivered:
MISSION (Finally, Really, Almost) ACCOMPLISHED!!!!; Or, Crude Oil Hits $100/bbl
For the aught-8 New Year, in case you hadn’t heard, crude oil prices finally hit $100 per barrel.
At long, long last, the National Energy Policy Development Group, aka the Cheney Energy Task Force, could stage its very own photo-op on some U.S. Navy nuclear powered aircraft carrier someplace out where the sea and sky are photo-op blue, and where freedom rings to the high-pitch whine and rapid WOP-WOP-WOp-WOp-Wop-Wop-wop of a U.S. Marine Corps Blackhawk helicopter gunship descending onto its flightdeck.
Another (the same?) MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner emblazes the carrier’s control tower as The Vice President of the United States of America, Richard B. Cheney, steps smartly from the now rapidly silencing chopper onto the red carpet to the wild, uproarious cheers, huzzahs, and applause of the assembled sailors, media, and senior oil, defense industry, investment banker, and media executives, and other various and sundry and assorted rich, powerful, not necessarily old, but overwhelmingly white guys in military suits or civilian uniforms. There is a token female negro standing on the podium behind Mr Cheney.
Briefly surveying his congregation, the Vice President rapidly raises and lowers his right index finger, and suddenly, the only sound to be heard was a blank, smaller banner panel, attached to the right of the bigger MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner, whose lower right hand tiestring had come undone, and which was now flapping gently in the dying photo-op breeze.
“It has been a long and arduous campaign,” the Vice President began abruptly. “On the evening of November 7, 2000, just before the first returns started coming in, when I ordered President Bush to order me to organize and command the National Energy Policy Development Group (or N.E.P.D.G.,” he added parenthetically), “the closing spot price for Brent crude oil was thirty-one dollars and forty-nine cents.”
Relishing the audible gasp this information elicited from his audience, Cheney nodded wryly, and said, “Yes…..that is correct, gentlemen (ignoring the scattering of females here and there among the sailors, as the black woman to his right rear glowered menacingly). Thirty-one dollars and forty-nine cents.”
Putting the back of his hand to the side of his mouth like he was about to divulge some deep, dark state secret, he staged a forced whisper, “When Bush asked if that wasn’t being just a little bit premature, given that his brother Jeb’s polls in Florida weren’t even closed yet, let alone anything west of the Appalachians, I assured him with a pat on his head and said, ‘…..Trust me.’
Knowing guffaws, sniggers, and heh-heh-heh-heh’s coursed across the flightdeck.
Raising his eyes and opening his palms to the heavens as if looking for a little bit of help down here, he groused, “I know, I know………” (knowing guffaws, sniggers, and heh-heh-heh-heh’s gradually fall off so that all you can hear is that damn flapping again).
“In any event,” he shrugs into the silence, “my Mission as Chairman of the NepDeg was threefold. First: to develop a two-term program of action that would ensure that crude oil was at or above one hundred dollars per barrel just before the first Presidential Primaries of 2008. Second, and more important, to ensure that the United States had not only a large-scale, permanent military presence in the Middle East and South West Asia, but also a very lucrative, ehr patriotic and protracted conflict to actually fight in those areas that showed absolutely no signs whatever of ever being ever over and done with ever again over there, and — ”
“HHHUUUUUUAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!” ejaculated the platoon of combat fatigued Marines who were standing to attention at the rears of the several thousands of sailors formationed in dress blues.
Visibly pleased, the Chairman, almost chuckling, continued, “And Third and most important: to ensure that the American people passively accepted and dutifully complied with the biggest grab for government power on this planet since Stalin’s Russia in the 20s, Hitler’s Germany and Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 30s, and Mao’s China in the 40s.”
“hhhuuuuuuaaaaaawwwwWW???? squeaked a Marine. Even the flap stopped flapping.
“At the first meeting of My Energy Task Force on New Year’s Day, 2001, I distributed copies of The Project For The New American Century’s battleplanbook, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century to each member of the Task Force, with the instructions to “Think Pearl Harbor.”
A wave of knowing, profound nods of recognition and intimate familiarity rippled through the crowd.
“On September 11, 2001, the price of crude oil closed at twenty-nine dollars and eleven cents at the end of that tragic and terror filled day……” He paused pregnantly for effect, invoking that Holiest-of-The Holy Icon of the first decade of the new American century, “the New Pearl Harbor aka the attack on America and civilization” (which are, of course, not necessarily the same thing).
“Within a month and a half,” he chortled, “we were carpeting Afghanistan with bombs and not gold, USA PATRIOT and DHS (Department of Fatherland Security) were a done deal, and Americans were starting to shop again, looking ahead to the day after Thanksgiving. And Sadaam knew he was in deep doodoo.”
The squeaky Marine began to cast furtive sideways glances to his formation-mates, to see if he could see what they were seeing. Or thinking. If they were thinking. Of which he had considerable doubt.
“On May Day, 2003, the last time somebody pulled a stunt like this on an aircraft carrier and, in fact,” gesturing behind him, “probably used that same stupid looking banner, we were right at twenty-four thirty-three. The Baghdad Museum was stripped clean, but we had The Ministry of Petroleum solid, without the loss of a single hard drive, wall map, or site survey report.”
The executives weren’t really sure where he was going with this, and sensing that he was approaching the limit of the functionally effective collective and individual attention spans of his audience, Mr Cheney fastforwarded” “Fast forward to the Second Inaugural Ball, in 2005, and things are starting to fall into place. Forty-four forty-four was the close that nite.”
Looking back over his right shoulder, he smoothly and slyly asked his foxy bitch of a Secretary of State, “Do you think they made that up, Sugar Pants?” and winked. Condi shrugged coquettishly and gave him, and the assembled, her best “Even if I knew, you’d have to coax it out of me, Big Boy” smooth and sly smile and subtle shake of the action.
AAAAHHHHHWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! wolved the Marines and, for just the briefest of moments, things teetered on the very brink of tipping beyond control. Until some Sergeant Major-type bellowed “AT EASE!!!!!!!” And even Mr Cheney forgot for a moment that, as a draft dodger, he’d never been in the military, but that he damn sure knew what “AT EASE!!!!!!!” meant when that son-of-a-bitch bellowed it.
Breaking the dead silence, the Chairman repeated through clenched, smiling teeth, “Forty-four forty four,” menacingly glaring dead ahead into the networks’ common feed camera.
“And on January 1, 2006, sixty-five even.” Then dramatically digging into his pocket and extracting something, he crowed, “And now this…….,” as he held up a brand new, crisp $100 bill.
“Gentlemen…..Madam,” slightly bowing his head rightward and to his rear, “I give you One Barrel of Oil”
And the assembled multitude of the ones who matter storm to their feet and give him an extended, almost riotous standing ovation.
Nodding for silence, the Chairman of National Energy Policy Development Group surveyed the adoring eyes before him and intoned, “Thus, with the first part of my three-part Mission now achieved, all THREE parts of my Mission, as I outlined to you earlier, have been Accomplished, in time and under budget!”
Wild cheering, yelling, applauding, whistling, and bellowing accompanied the color guard band’s saucy rendition of “Happy Days Are Here Again,” and Mr Cheney and M(r)s Rice point to the Banner and give thumbs ups and wave and smile and almost theatrically shake hands and then, suddenly, the flapping panel is pulled aside, and the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner has an addendum: NEXT STOP, $200!!!!
And then the crowd totally lost it. Full grown CEOs and 4-star Generals with mistresses young enough to be their granddaughters, and Cabinet members, Congressmen, and Senators with boyfriends young enough to be their grandsons, and Lobbyists and PAC-Men and AIPAC-Men with suitcases bulging with unmarked $100 bills were laughing and weeping and hugging and pumping their fists in the air and then suddenly, they began chanting “For Life! For Life!! For Life!!!”
As the helicopter whined to life and its blades began slowly to turn and start to fwop-fwop-fwop-fwop-fwop, The Vice President of the United States turned and faced the adoring mob, looking for all the world like a gunslinger getting ready to unsling his gun. Slowly he raised both arms over his head and then clasped his hands together and gave three or four high-ten victory pumps and then slowly, almost as if he was moving them through Extra Virgin Italian Olive Oil, he brought his arms down across his face and then his chest and then crossed them against his chest and thrust out his pelvis and his chin and wagged his ponderous head back and forth looking, for all the world, thought one Marine, like some “mutha-fucking slow motion Bubblehead.”
But to another Marine, the squeaky one, the one taking an on-line course in Modern European History from UCal, Berkeley, Mr Cheney looked for all the world like somebody he’d just seen pictures of very, very recently. He couldn’t quite nail it, but he remembered something about Italy in the 30s, and he promised himself that he’d go look it up as soon as this stupid formation was finished.
“For Life! For Life!! For Life!!!” the crowd screamed and wailed and ranted and wept ecstatically as The High Chancellor and His Consort waved imperially and headed for the now totally cranked gunship.
As he stood carefully appreciating his Secretary of State’s labored ascent into the chopper in a modestly tailored but not too loose or long skirt, one of the swarming news guys stuck a microphone in his face and yelled out: “So. What’s da Decider’s Decider deciding deese days, boss?”
He paused, pursed his lips as if, well, deciding whether now would be a good time or not, and then with a Crumbs For The Fish sort of a shrug, tossed out this tidbit that was captured and recorded by every major media outlet in America, but never reported. Not until after. Long after.
“Well,” he pursed his lips, as if trying to suck loose a piece of steak that was caught between his upper front teeth, “we gotta decide whether or not we’re gonna pull this thing. It’s their turn to be black-boxed in, and, well, a deal’s a deal and all, but, damn, this IS fun, and they’re as likely to screw it up as not. So, we may just have another little 9/11 thing in, awh, say, September, and cancel the whole fucking election. I don’t know boys, what’dya think?”
And he turned abruptly and hopped on board the chopper and sat down in the jump seat and belted in as the door closed and took the Glenfiddich neat that was proffered by Secretary of State Rice, who wondered why in the hell was everybody chanting that anti-abortion slogan “For Life! For Life!! For Life!!!”
“Sugar Pants” he sighed, thrusting his empty glass forward for a refill, “they ain’t talking about abortion. They’re talking about me. ME. Leader For Life Me.”
“Oh,” she said, thinking. “Ohhhh,” she said, thinking some more. “Ohhhhhhhhhhhh,” she said, taking a swig directly from the bottle.
The chopper was gone out of earshot, the formations dismissed, the Banners and carpets and chairs and bandstand and other paraphernalia were being torn down and moved out, and the squeaky Marine stood there all alone in the middle of the flight deck, trying for the life of him to remember where he’d seen that gesture before.
Something about Italy and the 30s,…..but what,….and who,….and why,…..?
###
JG Moebus (S/V WayFinder)
Half Moon Bay, CA
Will someone get this Moebus clown and his off-topic megadump posts of substance induced rantings off the blog? They are a complete waste of space.
Specifically WHAT “off-topic” post(s), presumably as in plural, Mott?
Re the here and now of BoM climate data, the attached link shows how representative their stations are.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
Note that these “Reference Climate Stations” (not Representative CS) number only 93 on the main land masses. And of these there are;
22 in NSW,
8 in Vic,
10 in SA,
7 in Tas,
6 in NT,
22 in WA, and
18 in Qld.
So 40 of the total (43%) are in NSW, Vic and SA.
Note that an area of about a third of the continent, comprising the eastern half of WA, the western half of SA and the SW quarter of NT is represented by only two stations, Forrest near the Bight and Giles in the centre.
Meanwhile, the area to the east and south of a line drawn from Fraser Is Qld to Port Augusta SA has no less than 37 stations (44 incl Tas) despite covering much less area than the sample above.
In NSW, Cobar is the only station between the lower Murray River and St George Qld, about half the entire state. And Sid Reynolds has indicated above that central NSW has not had anywhere near a record warm year. So we now have the “incredibly shrinking warmest ever year”.
The 136m ha of NT has only 6 stations, each representing an area the size of Victoria.
And in the light of this blatant SE and SW bias, then we can certainly say that if the national mean still didn’t show a record warm year then the real weighted mean was very far from it.
Mott, re your last comment, I wonder where many of the RCSs sit in relation to the following figure: http://climate.uah.edu/25yearbig.jpg ?
It shows about half of Australia experiencing no warming in the period 1978-2006, with the other half experiencing warming in the range of 0.1-0.3 degrees C. Now, I’ll bet that a majority of those RCSs sit within the band that is warming.
Thanks for that link, Proteus. Yes, about 7/92 are in the 0.3-0.5C range with about 45/92 in the 0.1-0.3C band.
More importantly, it is easy to see why they have left out the antarctic stations because they have undergone some very serious cooling, and the claimed territorial waters have had no change.
Rather convenient how territorial boundaries can shift as the organisational expedient demands, don’t you think? If the subject is whales then the view is absolutely firm that these are sovereign territory but not so firm when the temperatures interfere with a good story.
It is also worth noting that the boundaries of these temperature ranges are extremely arbitrary given that the line drawn accross the centre of Australia is represented by only two or three stations for the 3000km transect.
are time series anomalies available individually for all stations that the BOM use to compile this data?
It would be interesting to see the trends on each site.
I haven’t seen any, William. They are good at generalised pretty pictures but short on detail. And it only goes back to 1915 despite good data going back much further.
In the case of Rockhampton Qld there is a mean temp for 1880 to 1937 that is warmer than the mean from 1937 to present. Yet, the BoM map shows a substantial warming in that region from 1915 to present. An inconvenient truth, perhaps?
“NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has declared 2007 the second-warmest year on record, tying with 1998 for the title. 2005 remains the hottest, according to the agency. Researchers said, to no one’s surprise, that the greatest warming occurred in the Arctic. “As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases,” said James Hansen, director of GISS. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration came out with different numbers, concluding that 2007 was the fifth-warmest year on record. Still, they acknowledged, it was pretty darn warm.
from Grist