RAIN sure is falling this week on the parade of our global warming alarmists.
Wettest of all is Tim Flannery, who was made Australian of the Year last year for wailing the world was doomed.
“I think there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis,” he groaned. But buy his The Weather Makers before you flee.
Reporters solemnly reported even this: “He (Flannery) also predicts that the ongoing drought could leave Sydney’s dams dry in just two years.”
And when did he say that? Oh, three years ago? Yet what do I read in my papers yesterday but this: “Sydney’s run of rainy days in a row – 11 – is the most in April for 77 years.”
And Sydney’s dams? Above 65 per cent capacity now, and rising.
…..it was probably no surprise Flannery didn’t turn up at the Rudd Government’s ideas summit last weekend to talk more about how warming was dooming Sydney, despite being issued a gold-edged invitation.
He flew to Canada instead to tell their yokels to cut gases like the ones he just blew out the back of his jet, and talked warming with British Columbia’s Premier and businessmen.
But once again Flannery picked the wrong time and place to preach his warming gospel. A local paper reports: “In some regions of usually balmy British Columbia, many were caught by surprise by a storm that moved in late Friday and set snowfall records in Nanaimo, Victoria and Vancouver.”
How the weather mocks Flannery. He’s flooded in Sydney, where he predicted drought, and snowed in in Canada when he predicted heat.
Read the entire article in The Herald Sun: Prophecy all washed up
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Flannery? The man who was “considering giving back his Australian-of-the-Year award”?
All talk – no action. But then what would you expect from the AGW Industry’s pin-up boy?
Flannery’s mispredictions (similar to Hilary Clinton’s misspokes) are based on pseudoscience.
Pin-up boy? What a wank.
Anyway did Flannery ever say it would never rain again. Glad to see the blog has returned to denialist craptrap again.
Weather mocks Flannery on issues of climate eh? Gee you wank on.
Headlines – “scientists predict climate change extinguishes all forms of climate variation and weather, the seasons will here forth cease to exist”
“the ongoing drought could leave Sydney’s dams dry in just two years.”
Did Flannery say that or not – just asking?
Luke … we will all defer to your superior knowledge on the subject of wanking.
What does “could” mean? It’s a complicated word I don’t quite understand.
Luke
Why have you not created a blog putting your own views?
Andrew Bolt! Blow the time it took to look and prove our first guess hey
‘Could’ is one of the weasel words used by alarmists – as are ‘might,’ ‘may,’ ‘maybe.’ An insurance policy for failed alarmist predictions, designed to scare people into ‘action.’
Pretty funny coming from Andrew Bolt who lives in Melbourne where there’s still no damn rain.
Melbourne’s water storages are now 31.7% full (562,715 million litres).
At the same time last year, water storages were 30.4% full (539,386 million litres).
And I guess there was some water used in the interim.
And they don’t have a desal plant or recycling yet.
So you’re saying we still don’t have the rain we are used to in Melbourne. Climate change.
That’s right SJT – climate changes – always has, always will.
Luke! Luke! Luke! (I’m shaking my head sadly here) Just exactly who is denying what around here? Every time you comment, the word “deniers” is always used. Please, learn some new words. Also, I would like to encourage you to follow Louis’ suggestion. But really, get a life!!
Cheers…..theoldhogger
Poor flim-flam Flannery flummoxed by floods and snafued by snows. Mocked by his own “Gaia”, and hoisted by his own petard.
Just goes to show that clowns attract a crowd.
Shame on the rabidness of the blog gimps who have supported this limp lettuce attack on Flannery.
“Could” is not “would”. Flannery was quite right to point out the multi-year failure of rainfall for our capital city water supplies and southern Australia in general. Having a good old laugh now that we’ve finally had a La Nina is like having a good old nervous laugh when you’ve had a near miss from dangerous driving and narrowly escaped injury. Keep dangerous driving and at some point your numbers will come up.
Most capital cities in Australia have been panicked by recent climate trends towards drier conditions. (And please don’t supply a stupid graph of Australia’s rainfall time series as an answer)
This is what serious rainfall analysis looks like http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/200704/gallant_hres.pdf The real “pin-up” boys.
If we’re all so utterly relaxed and happy why is water infrastructure and water efficiency such an ongoing massive national issue. Are all the Murray Darling’s overflowing with water and MDB allocations at maximum?
http://www.wron.net.au/DemosII/DamData/DamMap.aspx
http://wron.net.au/DemosII/DamData/DamLevels.aspx
The droughts of recent years will take a decade to recover from. Dollars don’t flow as quickly as water down the rural drain pipes.
The water supplies for Melbourne and Brisbane are not out of the woods yet. Although Brisbane is going gangbusters with desalination, recycling, water grids and new dams as well as water restrictions – targeting below 140 litres per day per person (currently 136). Go back to an El Nino sequence in the next few years and you’ll be back into it again.
The issue is the longer term climate trend to El Nino seasons and also neutral years that don’t deliver (SAM?).
This issue exemplifies why Australians have not historically understood drought and are poorly equipped for climate change. One wet year and the optimism overwhelms the long term reality thought processes. Woo hoo – we’re back to “normal” !
What a grandstanding shoddy piece of analysis hanging one on Flannery. Mashing weather into climate analysis. How about a serious national review of the situation with metropolitan water supplies, rural drought and climate trends.
Recycling Bolt’s dross is pretty poor but about what you expect from denialists.
Haven’t Tim Flannery and Al Gore (who invented the internet) heard about web-conferences so that you don’t have to fly around all over the world to deliver messages? But, maybe they are using carbon trading to offset their flying instead. That really helps.
When you’re done with your alarmist whingeing Luke, could you please tell us how any failure of rainfall is man’s fault? We’re all ears.
Well denialist vermin – there’s a moderate case with changes in El Nino frequency – Pacific mean state; effect on SAM; maybe IOD as well; and an increase in temperature driving drought flux higher. Which if you’d be paying attention we’ve been over a dozen time before if you had your head extended. Drying trends in subtropics is an AGW finding.
God – well she actually is a WASP neocon North American – AGW warms up the wheat belt, increases El Nino frequency, improving USA yields, and droughts its best ally and agriculture competitor. Thanks sepos – no wonder you’re slow to move on the issue – and that’s what we get for being heathen bastards.
Hell Luke thanks for confirming that we live in a dry climate and presenting figures that show this. Also the figures show it “CHANGES” be buggered I never would have guessed. Records on the order of a hundred are best we have and that’s what it shows, dry. The Murray was bone dry in 1915. I have photos of people having a picnic on the river bed, also a camel train on the bed at Mildura. The Federation drought was one of the big incentives for the Snowy Scheme. The talk by Flannery et al that there is a direct correlation deserves derision. CO2 has had a steady rise for at least a hundred years, where is the steady fall in rainfall? It rises to peak around the middle of last century and then has steadily declined. Yet we are told again and again it is our fault and if only we would believe all will be well. Garbage this is a con put over those who wish to take advantage in some way. Throughout the whole of the last 100 years our population has increased so we do not need much thought to realize we use more water. Wake up Luke you have been conned, you your favourite word denier again and again it is the mantra of the faithful. For you someone who has any view different to yours is a denier. It seems embedded in the mind of people like yourself is that all is known and all that you have to do is find someone who will tell you what to believe.
Luke,
That was some good data you posted. However, we still can’t directly tie low rainfall in some regions to human caused global warming. As should be expected in normal weather patterns, some areas (in Austrlia) are short while others are doing well. Here in Texas, we typically have a serious drought every 30 – 50 years (with the wonderful dust storms that accompany them). It is also true that much deeper droughts have been common in the past, similar to what some parts of Australia seem to be experiencing now and similar to what Arizona was experiencing till the last couple of years. My guess is you’ll have a number of wet years over the next decade while other parts of the world will be plunged into deep drought. I just hope it’s not Texas.
Calgary’s snowfall has just smashed a 96 yr record.
Just one of hundreds of record snowfall and record low temp data this northern winter/spring.
Fact. Or lies from ‘denialist vermin’ ?
The Snowy scheme was designed to cope with 9 year droughts according to Endersbee in his recent book. So it looks like the science of predicting drought length was pretty well developed during the early 1950’s, so I think I might put my money on the deliverations of an engineer rather than Luke’s lyrical waxing.
Luke, Flannery’s predictions were plainly wrong.
I was given FLannery’s “The Future Eaters” as a Christmas Present some years back and read it in a day or so. I marvelled at Flannerys account of how a particular bat appeared in NZ. Genetically it was derived from a Peruvian Fishing bat and Flannery reckoned that these bats flew from Peru, westward against the prevailing winds, to settle down in NZ.
There are some serious problems with this scenario, none the least being the basic physical impossibility of it, gieve NZ’ latitude. And if these Peruvian Bats island hopped, then why no evidence of them being on other islands on the way to NZ. And of course one has to have male and female bats as well, so Flannery’s explanation for the existence of a Peruvian Fishing Bat in NZ seems a tad controversial.
So it’s hardly surprising that his weather forecasts are equally controversial. This is what happens when a science isn’t based on empirical fact.
Remember Luke, climate sensitivity is a “what if” assumption. It has never been empirically verified by experiment. It’s pseudoscience and probably the reason you hide behind a pseudonym.
Oh for heavens sake – the old dry bed of the Murray River ruse. There are things called dams DHMO – they regulate water – you may have heard of them.
Funnily enough management of things called “dams” tend to make watercourses have water when otherwise they would not. Isn’t that rocket science. Did you know that.
And yes some of water demand is population based but does that explain record rainfall deficits in dam headwaters and increased evaporative demand. Funny that – that rainfall causes runoff that fills dams. Who would have thought. Population demand reflects in risk profile and how much surplus storage or water manufacturing capacity you’re prepared to have on standby. Economists like to go on about “non-performing assets” and optimal resource allocation here.
And for triple heavens sake – the old CO2 direct correlation ruse. Jeeez ! And another screen punched out and keyboard full of coffee. Blogging is expensive and dangerous. Read what I wrote above – Flannery didn’t tell me – it’s in the literature and latest research.
Reality is that Murray allocations modelled over the period put the current drought off the scale. Same with SEQ water supply catchments.
Wake up DHMO – your ignorance displayed here is a great example of the problem of the thickness of the denialist cranium.
We live in a variable climate more than “dry”. Average or median rainfall means little. The old rule was lose money 3 in 10 years, come out even 4 of 10 and make a profit 3 in 10. When you end up with a loss in 6 or 7 tends to become problematic. It’s not the individual event – it’s the sequence of droughts in a row that get farmers, regions, industries and country towns. The failure to get relief and cash flow.
It’s not about belief or faith DHMO – it’s about risk. And therefore best science evaluation which you wouldn’t ask a religious zealot denialist for advice on – all you’ll get is an Al Gore/Flannery rave. That’s nice but bugger off.
Reality:
Dam levels up but drought lingers (funny Paul didn’t tell us that eh?)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23314971-11949,00.html
No water for rice.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23595713-11949,00.html
Australian drought a factor In UN food aid shortage
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23520597-5014046,00.html
Big bucks in drought aid up for evaluation.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23589803-11949,00.html
Your advice DHMO – “oh well – we live a dry climate and don’t worry about it”.
Mike – I agree multiple year droughts have occurred in the past and everything being equal will occur again. On the other hand we now have a fair bit of science on AGW effect on El Nino and Pacific Ocean mean state (equivocal perhaps), an emerging story on the effect of the impact of greenhouse and ozone depletion on the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and therefore anti-cyclone belts, and a upswing in temperatures during drought. So we in Australia seem to have had more El Nino events, few La Nina events (enjoying the current event very much), neutral years that have also failed and increased evaporative demand. Did AGW solely cause our recent drought – probably not – but I think it did make it worse. And risk of more to come perhaps? Want absolute proof – come back in 50 years and we’ll know.
Importance for us – local food supply, farm and regional investment planning, export income, world food supply, building of infrastructure, decisions to maintain drought aid, decisions to invest in moving Australian agriculture to northern Australia. All major issues needing good advice. and in capital cities – big decisions on desalination plants and controversial water recycling schemes (recycling sewage) – the new so-called “water manufacturing” industry.
So what can government, individuals and corporations do except listen to the best science we can muster. Laughing at that science is a defacto decision to maintain the status quo. An answer is not optional.
Louis – so tell us why Murray farmers are out of water – oops.
Luke,
– “I agree multiple year droughts have occurred in the past and everything being equal will occur again”
– “On the other hand we now have a fair bit of science … (equivocal perhaps)”
– “Did AGW solely cause our recent drought – probably not”
– “but I think it did make it worse”
So .. let me get this straight: we’re supposed to seriously consider your rantings, which by your own words is solely based on:
a) equivocal “science”
b) + a probability (more accurately a guess)
c) + what you think (??)
This is your best shot? This is the strongest case you can mount for AGW?
When does Big Brother start again?
So Ivan – if you have any clue you would ponder what sort of a problem you’re dealing with. You’re trying to detect a signal in an already noisy environment.
If you like we can use a few pages of this post repeating all the studies and evidence that’s available. Which we have done before many times (zzzzz).
You can Google scholar for all the work on El Nino and AGW, SAM, ozone depletion, Australian droughts, river inflow analyses, and temperature effects during recent droughts,
Looking at those studies is enough to give serious concern that AGW is already impacting (and will exacerbate) Australian droughts. (Note for blog gimps – this does not imply that it will never rain again or we will never have La Nina events ever again). It’s about changing frequency and severity.
You want absolute proof – come back in 50 years. Could be a tad late – but oh well – too bad – so sad. Actually south west Western Australia is pretty clear cut already. Both and AGW and natural changes at work.
But spread this increasing impact into South America, southern Africa, India and Indonesia as El Nino tends to influence and you have major global impacts. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/impacts.html
So Ivan your advice to investors, planners, government and farmers is to ignore the science, divine chicken entrails and tea leaves, and not worry ? That’s helpful (not!).
Would you suggest building more dams that maybe won’t fill. Continue drought support or abandon? Redesign your entire farming operation including plant and machinery. Invest in northern Australia or not? Build desalination and water recycling plants or not?
Do you think God will make it simple for you. She’s testing you Ivan.
I don’t know exactly when Big Brother starts but you’d be voted out first week.
This Flannery eco terrorist is another one I cant crank becuase they wont stay still, but I’ll get him all I have to do is follow his carbon footprints, they are the size of a yeti’s. He leaves floods behind him, and cold spells in summner. Should be easy trackin’
Never you mind Die Hards after him.
“Death to the doom prophet/profit carbonators, Gore and Flannery, death and more death and just a smidgin of destruction”.
Luke,
It’s funny how ranters always assume that they “know” what other people are thinking.
Your comments confirm my observation that acceptance of the AGW argument is an expression of sloppy, lazy thinking – basically an inability to separate issues. It’s all too hard, so let’s just go for a simple solution to a complex problem.
In my view, there are (at least) 3 distinct issues wrapped up in the current AGW ‘debate’:
– climate variability (it can/will get both hotter and colder – so get used to the idea)
– water supply (water in the wrong places)
– renewable and/or sustainable energy.
However, the debate was long ago hijacked by the Loony Left – who are at least smart enough to know that if you want an idea get up then it has to be topical, the message needs to be kept simple and the ‘solution’ even simpler still. The message couldn’t possibly be any simpler than “the problem is all caused by CO2 and it’s all man’s fault!”. Weak minds (the ones that always “know” what other people are thinking, for example) can easily assimilate this message and parrot it ad infinitum.
It obviously helped to have a germ of fact, e.g:
– Would the adoption of more renewable / sustainable energies reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Possibly, but not by enough to have an effect on anything meaningful. Doesn’t mean that renewable
/ sustainable energies are not a worthwhile goal, though. Just a pity it has to be linked with faulty (and dangerous) AGW/CO2 logic.
This is where the whole argument begins to fall apart:
– will a reduction in CO2 have any impact on climate variablity?
– will a reduction in CO2 have any impact on water supply (i.e. will it rain more in certain
areas)?
The answer to both of these questions is, of course: None whatsoever. There is not a single piece of objective proof on either of these points – in spite of your assertions about “all the studies and evidence that’s available”.
In fact, it was only 30 years ago that other loonies were ranting about the impending “global cooling”, with an equal degree of ‘certainty’ and with all their available ‘studies’ – even hade their nutty ‘solutions’ to ‘fix’ the ‘problem’:
http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf
Thankfully, back then they didn’t feel the need to create a whole new field of “Climate Science”.
Probably had more important things to worry about.
All that the (big-E) Environmentalists have managed to achive in the current ‘debate’ is to shoot themselves in the foot. Renewable energy IS a worthwhile objective. But because they have chosen the alarmist “AGW/CO2 issue” as the delivery vehicle, it is getting drowned out in the noise. Which must be frustrating to all those that are genuinely concerned about (small-e) environmental issues.
Anyone that has a brain and can examine the issues in the AGW/CO2 case is never going to go along with the highly prescriptive “you must reduce CO2 and ruin the economy” religious dogma – primarily because of risk. On all available evidence, the AGW “cure” will likely be much worse than any (as yet unproven) potential “problem”.
And of course the more pushback they get from ‘denialists/sceptics’, the more hysterical the alarmists become. The ‘debate’ will continue for as long as the alarmists maintain their arrogant attitude of: “it’s true because we say it’s true – stop asking for proof – there isn’t time”.
Little wonder then that “Big Oil” backs the AGW Industry to the hilt. For them, the longer the
‘debate’ goes on the better – it means that attention is diverted from examining viable renewable energy solutions (and I’m not talking about Ender’s noddy ‘put a sub-standard PV cell on every roof’ – I’m talking about sensible, practical solutions). It also means that the climate of ‘crisis’ is maintained, which in turn keeps the price of oil up.
So – well done all you AGW ranters. You couldn’t do a more effective job for Big Oil if you were
on their payroll. Even better done if the Kyoto targets get up — how much more money will Big
Oil and Big Coal make when they have to come along in 5-10 years time and clean up all the mess that the AGW/CO2 alarmists have created?
On the other hand, if you want to do something useful and have a debate about renewable energy and/or solutions to Australia’s highly variable water supply – without all the AGW/CO2 religious baggage – then bring it on.
We must not forget the Big Oil is essentially government controlled companies – only 4% of the world’s oil reserves are owned by privately owned oil companies, the rest are state run or sanctioned companies.
So Big Oil is actually Big Government.
Luke,
As you already know, I am spared the effort.
Louis,
That’s true – but there are some big oil companies in there as well.
ExxonMobil earns more in a year than the GDP of Saudia Arabia, the world’s biggest oil producer.
They benefit far more than any single Big Government in the manipulation of the price of oil.
Usually Luke hissink at Louis.
This time Luke hissink at everyone
“It’s funny how ranters always assume that they “know” what other people are thinking. ”
Indeed – so the AGW science could be correct and the current policy suggestions unpalatable? That’s at least honest/rational.
And if you do want to have a debate on water supply you need to decide what your drought return frequencies and risk tolerance is.
Is the last 100 years a reasonable sample on which to build for the next 100 years? Is it economically rational to have major water supply/manufacturing investment sitting around unneeded (all of which goes out the window when the bad numbers come up!).
But we were debating whether Flannery was a complete tool or not weren’t we?
It’s actually worth checking out the rainfall distribution for the current month. Put your cursor on the dots and it will give you the station info. Not much west of Sydney?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=points&variable=totals&area=nsw&period=cmonth®ion=centralcoast&time=latest
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=points&variable=totals&area=nsw&period=cmonth®ion=nsw&time=latest
Luke,
“But we were debating whether Flannery was a complete tool or not weren’t we?”
– No. Flannery IS a complete tool. No debate required.
“so the AGW science could be correct”
– So now it’s a “could be”, whereas before it was a “certainty”. That’s progress, at least. And therein lies the problem. Science is not about a “could be” – that is called religion. Science is about provable facts.
“and the current policy suggestions unpalatable”
– Yes, if they are based on a “could be”. If they are based on provable fact, I’ll be the first to sign up for it. I don’t want my future and that of my kids stuffed up by a “could be”.
“And if you do want to have a debate on water supply you need to decide what your drought return frequencies and risk tolerance is.”
– and / or what technology solutions and social policies you put in place to deal with it – including (potentially) relocation of agriculture. All of which would be more productive than holding hands and praying to a CO2 god for forgiveness.
Of course it’s a “could be” – it’s the global atmosphere for heavens sake. It’s complex. Even the most marvellous science won’t get it to more than “highly likely”. Science isn’t about provable facts – it’s about supporting or disproving hypotheses. We can argue in the earth sciences it’s difficult to prove anything definitely. You can only amass evidence.
But you see your kids can also get buggered up on a “do nothing” too.
There are risks either way. Maybe the IPCC have got it wrong on the “much worse” side. Have they understated their views to appear “reasonable”.
Maybe the world moves on carbon economy and we’re left out/penalised/trade barriered out.
Worrying about Flannery/Al Gore/other famous persons doesn’t get us through these decisions.
So to undertake the technology solutions/social policies you need to base the decisions on something?
DO you assume the next hundred years rainfall probability distribution is the same as now?
Do you assume ENSO, SAM and IOD behaviour is the same as the last 120 years?
Numbers need to be crunched. Evaluations need to be made. Beating the science to death with a mattock effectively makes some of those decisions defacto. Essentially then you accept the last 120 years as being the only thing we know. That there are no trends in the data.
So the current blog view I’d suggest is that “there is nothing in it”. That’s actually a decision. And a decision for farmers currently asking “have the numbers changed”.
The farmer decision:
(1) to tough it out (which incidentally is why people go broke feeding animals in big droughts)
(2) to change farming systems
(3) to reduce dependence on farm income
(4) to get bigger
(5) to diversify
(6) to move north or South America !
(7) get a job in the city/town and get completely out of farming
The government decision:
(1) to stop or reduce burgeoning drought relief payments
(2) to invest in research in different farming systems/drought resistant crops
(3) to accept or ignore the science advice
(4) to encourage relocation of production by policy instruments
(5) to put in water infrastructure (dams, weirs, pipelines)
Luke,
“Of course it’s a “could be” – it’s the global atmosphere for heavens sake. It’s complex. Even the most marvellous science won’t get it to more than “highly likely”.
Hang on a minute. Let me quote to you from AR4:
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” (Synthesis Report – pg 30).
No “could be”, no “it’s complex”. Not “highly likely” — but “unequivocal”. So don’t let’s go trying to dumb-down the message here.
“Science … is about supporting or disproving hypotheses”
– Correct, and when you prove a hypothesis it becomes a “fact”. When you disprove it, it remains bullshit – an unproven hypothesis is still a hypothesis. Manufacturing ‘data’ to ‘prove’ a hypothesis is called ‘fraud’, irrespective of how well-intentioned the motives.
“So to undertake the technology solutions/social policies you need to base the decisions on something?
DO you assume the next hundred years rainfall probability distribution is the same as now?
Do you assume ENSO, SAM and IOD behaviour is the same as the last 120 years?”
All very good questions, and all have absolutely nothing to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. All worth exploring in a rational and sensible manner.
“The farmer decision” and “the government decision”
See my point?. See how much simpler it becomes when all this AGW/CO2 nonsense is taken out of the picture and you focus on the real issues? All of those are sensible issues that can be debated and resolved.
Yep warming was unequivocal on assessment of the evidence they had. But there’s more to AGW than just warming. Much more. Effect on El Nino and hurricanes for examples are less certain. Then we have rainfall, climate extremes and the list goes on …
You can have evidence to support a hypothesis and the hypothesis can still be wrong. Think you have little idea of how science works in this area.
And you’re wanting cast iron proof where you won’t get it.
And I’m afraid all those phenomena ENSO, SAM, IOD probably DO have lots to do with atmospheric CO2 – and SAM from ozone too. And volcanoes, solar, land use change, soot on snow yadda yadda yadda
… And how would you suggest we “rationally” explore such complex phenomena without modelling?
Many people (farmers and government) and UNSURE whether the last 120 years is any guide to the next. You can’t take your so called AGW/CO2 “nonsense” out of the picture I’m afraid. It ain’t that simple anymore. You’re really saying lets lobotomise our understanding.
The behaviour of the southern oscillation seems to be changing for example. So if your seasonal forecast isn’t AGW proof (on what we’ve observed) forecasts will start to break down.
What do you do with a significant number of modelling studies that says ozone depletion affects SAM, affects latitude of anti-cyclones, affects rainfall? Forget it was ever done? Have a good old belly laugh because it’s raining in Sydney?
Ivan you haven’t thought about this stuff at all.
You still think AGW is somehow “optional” to real decision making.
Luke,
“But there’s more to AGW than just warming”
OK – so there is more to ‘global warming’ than ‘warming’. Interesting concept.
“And you’re wanting cast iron proof where you won’t get it.”
Exactly — now you’re beginning to sound like a sceptic. But don’t go promoting the IPCC AR4 and their whole AGW case as the “cast iron proof” – when it’s not. And don’t go forcing potentially damaging policy decisions down people’s throats based on this assumed “cast iron proof” (or as close as you’re likely to get).
“Ivan you haven’t thought about this stuff at all.
You still think AGW is somehow “optional” to real decision making.”
Let’s explore this for a moment. Let’s say for the purposes of debate that you’re right, all this AGW/CO2 hysteria is correct and that CO2 is the problem, and let’s get on with implementing the policies to do something about it.
Let’s start with the “aspirational” 60% by 2050 scenario. That’s around 1% reduction per year. Do you honestly think that 1% per year is going to have the slightest impact on climate patterns over a 50 year period? Really? When?
OK – so that doesn’t work, or won’t work soon enough. So now that we’re a little bit pregnant, let’s move to a more agressive alternative: say, 90% by 2030. Over 4% per year for 20 years. Is that going to bring back the rains? When?
OK – so we see little or no change in in the first 2-5 years, then what? Let’s go to the full on lunatic fringe alternative: close all coal fired power stations, ban all private transport, slash and burn. Will that bring back the rains? Will there be any economy left to rain on?
Just because people don’t leap to the same simplistic solutions that you do, doesn’t mean that they haven’t thought about it.
Mike Taylor from Texas, (above) gives a reasoned assessment of drought/climate variations.
There are short and sharp droughts that can even be embedded in a longer period of above average rainfall; such as 1956 and 1965, in the period from 1949 to 1979, here in areas of NSW. A period when generally it never stopped raining.
Before that we had a deeper period of below average rainfall that generally lasted from 1929 to 1948. In the middle, in 1942, we had a flood (in the Hunter region). We now seem to be in a similar period; (generally from 1980). Of course there are longer rainfall shifts, and temp. shifts and our understanding of these is still very limited.
Like most farmers, we have learned to adapt and survive. We live very close to climate. In adapting and surviving, we have come to be very wary of public servants advising us on what is going to happen, and what we should do.
Sometimes the are right, but more often they are wrong. We are very, very wary of ‘fashionable trend issues’ that are promoted by gov’t agencies and the like.
eg. over past few years, these ‘suit men’ have been relentlessly advising us to adapt and plan for a ‘hotter drier climate’, because of “global warming”. It would be a foolish primary producer who heeded this advice.
“It would be a foolish primary producer who heeded this advice.”
Not just primary producers. Surely this applies to everyone.
The problem is, this GHG hysteria has become the new “creeping Socialism”.
How many people are aware of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, I wonder?
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/reporting/publications/pubs/nger-fs.pdf
Around 700 medium and large companies (today) now have to “register and report if they emit greenhouse gases, produce energy, or consume energy at or above specified quantities per financial year”.
This is the thin edge of the wedge to establish the Carbon Nazis. All of this is a cost on goods and services. And an invasion of privacy – we have one person who’s job is to review all our air travel records: where did you go? why did you go there? was it necessary?
Does any of this sound like 1984?
Ivan
The Greenhouse Reporting Act? Ye Gods, but I should have known as I recall travelling on one of Perth’s trains a couple of years back listening to some public servants discussing implementing this very system on a state level.
Now that we have wall to wall ALP governments throughout Australia, it is totally clear what we have been gulled into.
And there isn’t much we can do about it either since I suspect the ALP will gerrymander itself into permanent political power.
Welcome to Atlas Shrugged Folks.
Louis,
Look at the dates.
I’m afraid we can thank John Howard for this one – a last desperate bid to curry favour amongst the ‘feel good’ environmentalist crowd, apparently.
I was questioning the validity of gobal warming on this site two yrs ago on the basis of CO2 being a minor contributor to heat absorbtion and the fact that geologically the history shows no relationship between CO2 and temp increases.Well wasn’t I derided as an ignorant fool who had no knowledge of science.
Chapman rightly points out that cooling is far more ominious that heating,since much of the world’s arible land will go under snow causing poverty and wars of unprecedented severity.
Let’s hope that Chapman is wrong in suggesting that Sun spot activity may reach sustained low ebb.The world over the last 12mths has reduced it’s temp by 0.7deg C.The oceans over the last 5yrs have also decreased their temps.
One thing is certain ,the world increasingly becomes more dangerous as poor countries continue to populate beyond the capacity of this planet to sustain them.Forget carbon credits,let’s have infertile credits!
Ivan,
Yes I know and it is as Hayek wrote all those years ago, that stumble into socialism more by accident than by purpose, or at least paraphrasing him.
Of course Howard was never going to sign Kyoto so it might not have acquired legal status, but that is all water under the bridge now.
Arjay
I suspect Chapman might be right because sunspot cycle 24 is getting later and later. I have a feeling that winter in Halls Creek this year will be very cold. It’s April and it’s already cold with beanies and what not being necessary in the mornings. this morning before sun temp was 15.18 degrees Celsius. Gets to about 33 degrees Celsius during the day.
The other interesting thing about population explosions is the biological fact that species which experience catastrophic reductions in popululation numbers tend to balance that out with catastrophic rises in population numbers.
Is humanity doing this today from some un-conscious previous catastrophe that nearly made us extinct?
“Just because people don’t leap to the same simplistic solutions that you do, doesn’t mean that they haven’t thought about it.” – Ivan please point out where I advocated your solutions list !
Reality: Kyoto Mk I complied with by governments banning broadscale tree clearing. NSW and Qld Labor govts did the banning and the Coalition Feds neatly arranged the Australia clause at Kyoto to accommodate the policy impact. The perfect storm. Howard loved it. Impact for compliance on the average non-rural Aussie – zilch !
What total hypocrisy from Reynolds “Like most farmers, we have learned to adapt and survive.” – well you personally might have – but billions of dollars in drought aid going on for decades might have been helpful to many too. Pull the other one Sid.
Why would one think Chapman would really have a clue. Coz he’s an astronaut – sorry astro”naught” by Sid – “ooooooooooo we’re all so impressed”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23595713-11949,00.html
Hey rice prices are rocketing up, time for the farmers to make a fortune.
Ummmmm…. no water….
“Ivan please point out where I advocated your solutions list!”
My point was in response to your comment that ‘AGW is somehow “optional” to real decision making’.
But you’re right – there is no ‘list’. I should have said ‘solution’, not ‘solutions’, and that is my mistake.
In going back over your previous posts I realise that I was wrong about any ‘solutions’ in there either – most of it is just a tirade of abuse directed at anyone and everyone who has the effrontery to question the gospel according to Luke.
Or a tirade of abuse against good scientists by armchair critics and gimps?
Well, the floor’s yours Luke.
I asked the question before, and didn’t get an answer. If we go along with your assertion that AGW/CO2 is the source of the problem, when do we get our payback.
If we’re going to have to put up with the significant additional costs and loss of amenity that CO2 reduction would entail, when do we see the benefit? When do the rains return?
If the science and the scientists are as bulletproof as you assert, that shouldn’t be too hard a question for them to answer, should it? Show us the timeline.
Well I don’t think you will convince the global community to make serious reductions, so you will be putting up with the impacts.
And as usual for a denialist you’ve skewed any answer into an impossibility. For example the motor industry bleated that emission controls would send them to the wall – it hasn’t. So there is a long way to go with any serious innovation on energy.
Anyway – “when will the rains return” – well it’s a question of how many El Ninos, non-firing neutrals and La Ninas you would like. What would you like Ivan? Compared to now or what? You would like AGWers to also remove climate variation too and make your breakfast.
You can pick what distribution of variability you would like.
All I know is that if things keep going our drought frequency is likely to increase and impacts more intense, if it has not already. Move towards a semi-permanent El Nino climate. There’s no wall switch with precise dial settings.
So Ivan let me ask you some questions – what serious advice besides platitudes are YOU going to give our farmers and governments? And the the timeline for that – right NOW !! What should our rice grower do? Stay or go?
So Luke divides the world into deniers and believers,just like the religious fraternity who have no real scientific basis upon which to base their claims.Fact:if you say that the world is flat often enough even with visual proof of the contrary,the world will be flat,as witnessed by both the Islamic and Christian faiths.Jesus rose from the dead and Mohommad had the ear of god whilst being a murderous meglomanic!
We are tribal beings and the general consensus of the tribe tends to over ride all logic.
So why do denialist scum persist with their spiteful religion then?
Actually most are neither- “neutrals” watching the footy and waiting for us to duke it out and decide.
What a typically spineless AGW ‘answer’.
And what a great thing accountability is. I’ve yet to meet an AGW alarmist that had the courage of their convictions. They are all piss and wind when they’re holding the magaphone and bullying and insulting everyone that doesn’t agree with them — but as soon as you ask them to accept individual accountability, to put their ‘science’ to the test and show their ‘plan’, they go weak at the knees. “No, no – just give us your $22B a year and don’t ask any difficult questions.”
Even Al Gore and James Hansen duck this issue – they never talk in terms of practical, incremental outcomes, only in absolutes – which, of course, they will never be around to be held to account for.
And as for your question about the rice farmer? Simple. He should go. Who in their right mind ever thought it was a sensible thing to grow a plant like rice on the driest continent in the world? How hard a decision was that?
I’m still wondering how we get rain to the Murray Darling using CO2 and over what time scale. Can anyone explain?
Paul,
Answer that question and you win a Nobel prize!
“So why do denialist scum persist with their spiteful religion then?”
What you alarmists call ‘spiteful religion’, the rest of the civilised world would call ‘democracy’.
The alarmists would have us give up our money, our amenity and, ultimately some of our freedoms to appease their god. I would have thought that this was a reasonably important decision, and since it affects everyone, they are entitled to have their say and question the basis on which any decisiions are made. Whether they are scum or not is irrelevant – these are decisions that will have a profound impact on everyone and they are entitled to make an informed decision.
I always used to half-jokingly make the comment that the alarmists were dangerous people. Your latest contribution has removed all doubt.
“I’m still wondering how we get rain to the Murray Darling using CO2 and over what time scale. Can anyone explain?”
You can reduce anything to absurdity, even science. 🙁
Looks like this site has now discovered the “Chewbacca Defense”.
Well Ivan you asked a really stupid question – you think that climate works like a dial on the wall do you. You have some good science that implicates AGW as growing influence in current and future Australian droughts. Your “scientific” reaction to that science is “bulldust”. And you demand a 100% precision answer while real decisions need to be made.
Your rice farmer comment is unbelievably stupid given the some of the highest yields and sophisticated production systems in the world are in these areas. http://www.rga.org.au/rice/growingau.asp
I suppose you’d have the same answer to all the Murray Darling’s irrigated agriculture and orchards then. “You’re all idiots”. They’ll enjoy your company I’m sure.
You’re a typical no input denialist drip. When asked to come up with something useful all you can do is have a rant about Al Gore and Hansen.
And so you’re closing the debate for asking for a 100% precision answer to an already variable system. You haven’t even got the brains to understand the system you’re dealing with.
Paul – if you’re asking a question like that – give up science. Typical old country view of the world with all concern but no advice for the locals.
So after all this discussion – lots of mock concern about Flannery as a smoke screen diversion but when asked to help with REAL climate decision making all the denialists are suddenly at the hairdressers. Pathetic guys. Really piss poor. No input. No clues. No advice.
Do your parents know that you are playing around with their computer?
Ivan
I think you just proved Luke’s point.
Well, our ricegrowers could have stayed on quite a bit longer, if large drafts of water denied to them and sent down the river for a quiverful of envirionmental causes, had not happened.
And yet in sheer madness, as world rice stocks plummet, our green driven, AGW believing Federal Government continues on its merry way, diverting more and more water from food production to “the envirionment”.
The forthcoming massive food shortages will be “the famine we had to have”.
Now Ivan the resolution about the rice grower is too simplistic.What if a new geneticly modified variety is developed that uses the same amount of water as wheat?If any crop is sustainable then what is the objection?
The environmentalists have become too ridgid in their view of nature.We have yet to explore the potentials of solar energy simply because of the ease of fossil fuels and the cartel potential they have afforded to the Arabs and multi-nationals.
Just in a small pocket of western NSW there is enough solar energy to support 2 billion
people.Solar is in it’s infancy,yet the Aust Govt let one of our people go to China with all the knowledge he had learnt here without the slightest hint of guilt or protest.It would not happen in China,the US or Russia.
It is not a matter of energy shortages but a reality of blinkered vision and allowing ourselves to be enslaved by the perveyers of fossil fuels,when more than ample energy comes from the Sun.The problem is that most of this energy is free.Difficult to tax and not easy for large corporations to monopolise supply.
In the past we had “day light robbery” when they taxed the number of windows in houses.In the future we could have “solar panel robbery” based on the amount of day light that we steal from our Govts and Corporates.In other words,they will own the daylight.
Bulldust Reynolds – the Murray system has experienced all time record low inflows. It’s fundamental. Anything to avoid the issue and set up more smoke screens.
Arjay,
“What if a new geneticly modified variety is developed that uses the same amount of water as wheat?If any crop is sustainable then what is the objection?”
None at all – what you are highlighting is the importance of clearly articulating the issues. I was asked the simple question – ‘what about the rice grower?’ So the simple answer was: ‘let him go’.
When you reduce complex problems to simple sound bites, you wind up with poor outcomes. If you fully examine the problem, and explore all the issues, you generally wind up with better outcomes.
Isn’t that what the ‘denialists’ have been saying all along? Apparently Nelson Muntz and the rest of the AGW alarmists have trouble getting their heads around this one.
So why does it have to be as water efficient as wheat. Why is that suddenly a criteria – would value perhaps enter into it? hmmmm
And it might be revealing to see the industry’s attitude on water efficiency and environmental flows. http://www.rga.org.au/news/mediaitem.asp?id=117
Clueless DC ….
Are you a complete moron, or is this just an act that you’re putting on for our benefit? If the latter, you can stop – we don’t need any more convincing.
Arjay:
“It is not a matter of energy shortages but a reality of blinkered vision and allowing ourselves to be enslaved by the perveyers of fossil fuels,when more than ample energy comes from the Sun.The problem is that most of this energy is free”
Um, you forgot about the massive upfront capital costs which make solar energy far from “free”. Economics will drive the transition to alternate energy sources, nothing else.
I’m still wondering how we get rain to the Murray Darling using CO2 and over what time scale. Can anyone explain?
Not only taking water from rice and other foods, but governments with the green disease continue headlong with their campaign against food production…Locking up more land for trees…Plans to tax belching animals…And regulating agriculture out of existance.
This stupidity will not stop until voters in developed countries, (who have been brainwashed with this nonsense since school), experience enough shortages, and use the final arbiter…The ballot box.
Sid,
No doubt about that – pain is the only effective motivator.
Speaking of which, I notice a headline in this morning’s Alarmist Age:
“Carbon Trading to hit poor hard”, which basically goes on to say that the Rudd government’s ‘Carbon Choices’ legislation will hit those without access to public transport an additional $1200 a year if the new scheme imposes a levy of $35 a tonne on carbon.
Well Sid we used the ballot box and old coots like you lost big time. Furthermore you’re way out of step with your industries. Tax red necks into the stone age.
Paul, didn’t you have a policy of kicking out comments such as those calling people denialists?
Luke, Thanks for providing a link to Gallant et al, ‘Aust. Met. Mag. 56 (2007): 223-239. I agree that this is what ‘serious rainfall analysis looks like’, but why do you count Ailie Gallant among ‘the real “pin-up” BOYS’ (EMPHASIS added)?
On a point of detail, the paper claims that there has been “a significant decrease of almost 55 mm per decade in annual total rainfall” in the eastern Coastal region since 1950 (pages 223 and 231). That would imply a trend decline of around 300 mm (12 inches when I went to school!) in average annual rainfall in this region since the middle of the 20th century.
According to the disaggregation of the trend in Table 5 on p. 232, the average annual number of rain days in this region declined by only 0.27 per decade. This doesn’t seem to be consistent with the figures for the four seasons in the table – the trend in the average annual number of rain days decreased in all four seasons, including declines of almost 1 day per decade in both summer and winter. Unless I am misreading the table, I suspect that the rate of decrease in the number of rain days is UNDERSTATED by an order of magnitude.
The average amount of rain per rain day in the same (eastern Coastal) region is also shown as declining by only 0.27 mm per decade. This is consistent with the seasonal averages and is probably correctly calculated from the source data.
My guess is that the trend in the region’s total annual rainfall, correctly calculated, is for a decline of about 5.5 mm per decade, made up of decreases of an average annual 2.7 days/decade in rain days and of 0.27 mm per rain day, also expressed as an average decadal rate. I suspect therefore that the trend rate of decrease in annual rainfall per decade, as given three times in the article, is OVERSTATED by an order of magnitude. I’d value your comments.
Lake sediments from both northern and southern Australia provide clear evidence that irregular occurrences of droughts, severe droughts and occasional megadroughts are a characteristic feature throughout the holocene. There is nothing to indicate that the recent drought is anything other than a natural ongoing part of this pattern.
The influence of increased CO2 on precipitation patterns is based solely on highly uncertain, unverified and constantly changing climate models. While there “could” be such an effect, a beneficial one is just as likely as a detrimental one and either result can be achieved by minor adjustment to various assumptions and estimates.
The absence of ongoing global warming over the past decade and pronounced global cooling of the past year cannot credibly be dismissed as simple local variability in weather. It is clearly global and contrary to all predictions of CO2 governed global warming.
The media are beginning to find news value in AGW doubts and the costs of ill-conceived countermeasures. Skeptical scientific opinions are increasingly being heard and conflicting new evidence appearing.
The alarmists have gone too far out on a very long limb for any retreat. A cooling trend in climate would be disastrous for the whole AGW ideology and result in a catastrophic loss of credibility for a large sector of the scientific community. The escalating fears they express appear to be based not so much on any important new evidence as on their own increasingly desperate hopes.
Walter Starck’s observation that the effect of CO2 on precipitation is just as likely to be beneficial as detrimental is well taken, as is his conclusion that ‘either result can be achieved by minor adjustment to various assumptions and estimates.’ In this connection, there is a fascinating set of maps of the 1951-1996 trends in Australia’s annual rainfall for ‘the eight runs in the ALL ensemble’ in Figure 19 of the Rotstayn et al (2007) paper cited in Gallant et al (2007).
And while Gallant et al find a huge drop in average total rainfall in the eastern Coastal region since 1950, Rotstayn et al (2007) say that “The rainfall trends for eastern Australia are difficult to interpret, given that there are no detailed studies, and insufficient evidence to clearly distinguish the trends from natural variability.’ I appreciate that ‘the eastern coastal region’ is not the same as ‘eastern Australia’, but a comparison of the two statements deepens my doubts about the validity of the numbers in Gallant et al.
Rotstayn et al (2007), which was cited by Gallant et al (2007), is available on a pdf link from the home page of Professor Graham Farquhar of the ANU.
Well Walter despite historical sequences there IS evidence of the impact of SAM and higher temperatures on the recent drought sequence. What do you think we ought do with that evidence.
Ian – http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi?variable=rain®ion=aus&season=0112&period=1950 would tend to confirm the magnitude of the declines in the Gallant paper. And apologies to Ms Gallant for including her as one of the “BOYS”. Need to make some phone calls and emails tomorrow.
Thanks Luke. I can’t reconcile the trends shown in that map with those for the post-1950 period on the BoM time series graphs for ‘Eastern Australia’ and ‘South Eastern Australia.’ And with the average annual rainfall in these regions in the 1961-90 period given as 625 mm., it doesn’t seem plausible that there could have been declines approaching 300 mm in the eastern Coastal region in the succeeding half-century or so.
I am however ready to accept correction on the point and will await the results of your inquiries with interest. Thank you for making them.
Do you (or BoM) have any comment on the Rotstayn et al conclusion, published soon afterwards, that there is insufficient evidence to clearly distinguish the rainfall trends in eastern Australia from natural variability? Or on the vastly different trends for the 8 model runs in their simulations (Figure 19), both in eastern Australia and some other regions?
By ‘succeeding half-century or so’ I of course meant succeeding 1950, not 1961-1990.
Oh Good, the rainfall trend map shows I am living in the right area for the moment – Halls Creek in the Kimberley.
And thanks Luke for the freudian slip – Warwick Hughes and I always wondered whether you were some BOM or CSIRO public servant.
Freudian slip?
Hardly, my guess Luke’s merely doing us a service by outlining local climate science that’s freely available on the web but only if you know where to look. I guess too, all it takes for anyone so inclined is an email to the right person in BoM.
Most of us are simply too slack to investigate the obvious hey
Gavin,
A service?
The public service is supposed to be impartial and supply its political masters with a balanced scenario – pro and con – it should be an advocate of policy – that is the job of politicians. The public service became politicised when Whitlam’s government was elected.
So Luke’s oputput here could hardly be described as balanced in terms of literature pro and con AGW. It is simply partisan politics using the resources of the taxpayers.
But we have signed Kyoto, the greenhouse accounting system comes into force on 1 July this year, and there is nothing we can do about it except complain.
That’s OK Louis – we’ve often discussed if you’re a mining industry stooge.
As for Freudian slip – que? What ? that I might actually check some source at source?
Luke,
The ad-homs never cease do they – now I am a stooge for the mining industry – and no you have totally missed the point re the Freudian slip, it seems to have completely flown over your head.
Well yes – as Pauline once said “Pls explain.”
“It is simply partisan politics using the resources of the taxpayers”
Louis: somebody has to explain this lot as we go foward.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/mar/map-blended-mntp-200803-pg.gif
Prophecy and …ahem… reality
<a href=”http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-warming/the-rain-stops-and-the-snow-starts/2008/04/28/1209234700239.html
Maybe this time!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-warming/the-rain-stops-and-the-snow-starts/2008/04/28/1209234700239.html
Yes, And it is the coldest April day on record. Not only in Orange, but through a huge swathe of central and western areas of NSW, (and ACT, hey, Gavin?).
So much for “Global Warming”.
Sid: Climate change is about more than temperature
“Years to recover fully despite increased soil moisture”
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/years+recover+fully+despite+increased+soil+moisture
silly sid thinks all that snow will fix the MDB overnight.
Anything we got yesterday has blown away towards NZ. Bet its the same tomorrow.
Let’s wait till we hear it from the kiwis hey
Gavin, how big was the bet?
http://weather.news.com.au/index.jsp?site=couriermail&contexttype=state&contextcode=nsw
Gavin , your link is about drought recovery; not ‘climate change recovery’.
And yes, drought recovery in the MDB and many other areas could go on for years…Or it could turn around fairly quickly… We just don’t know.
Ian: I spent most of yesterday waiting for the forecast rain to fall in town. As I stood on the verandah this morning about 9 am fare welling our Sydney guests who had driven round the mountains yesterday via Tumut, Adaminaby and Brindabella National Park I said there was snow about even though we could not see it.
“Statewide Weather 11.30
ACT Sheep Graziers Warning
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
ACT
Issued at 1110 on Monday the 28th of April 2008
Graziers are advised of COLD, WET and WINDY weather today.
Snowfalls are likely above 1100 metres this afternoon before slowly lifting
overnight. Conditions will ease by Tuesday”
What we need Ian is the wind speed at Mount Ginini but I’m sure you will take my word for it.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/200804/html/IDCJDW2804.200804.shtml