Australia could experience drought twice as often and the events will be twice as severe within 20 to 30 years, according to a new Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO report.
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Tony Burke yesterday released the report commissioned by the Rudd Government as part of a review of national drought policy.
According to the media release:
“The overall review, announced in April, will help prepare farmers, rural communities and Australia’s primary industries for the challenges of climate change.
The Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO climatic report on future drought events – the first of its kind in Australia – will be considered as part of the drought policy review.
Key findings of the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO report include:
Under a high scenario, droughts could occur twice as often, cover twice the area and be more severe in key agricultural production areas;
The current definition of ‘Exceptional Circumstances’, which defines areas eligible to apply for Federal Government drought assistance, is out-of-date;
Temperatures currently defined as ‘exceptional’ are likely to occur, on average, once in every two years in many key agricultural production areas within the next 20 to 30 years;
We need better ways of getting information about climate change preparedness to farmers.”
So it seems the government is reverting to scenario-modelling to determine its drought policy and will focus on a worst case scenario by way of a high emissions scenario.
There is really nothing new in this approach, indeed in November 2004 then NSW Premier Bob Carr released a report by CSIRO entitled ‘Climate Change in New South Wales’ alerting us to the possiblity of more frequent droughts. Given this report was also based on scenario-modelling I suggested at the time in my The Land column that the CSIRO could have spiced the report up even more by scenario-modelling a war and a volcanic eruption into it.
——————
The Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO report ‘An assessment of the impact of climate change on the nature and frequency of exceptional climatic events’ is available at www.daff.gov.au/droughtpolicyreview.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I have posted my views on the drought etc on the previous thread.
Having lived in the country for most of my 63 years and regularly watched Landline and listened to the country hour I’m always disappointed in the reluctance of Aussie farmers to adapt – I can hear them muttering about those damn greenies when Landline shows them yet another successful farmer who survived low rainfall by planting rows of trees and recreating wetlands, or how Peter Andrew reclaimed his rivers. I listen to them talk of hard times as they drive off to the coast for their annual holidays in their new Landcruiser.
No one mentions that 2005 was a record wheat harvest for Australia, best not create suspicious rumours those city folk might misinterpret.
Jill was feeling poorly, and went to the doctor.
The doctor said she was feeling poorly because she smoked, drank a lot, never exercised, and had a diet of cornchips, softdrink, and cheese pasta.
He painted a SCENARIO for her: she continued on her diet, had a heart attack at age 35.
He painted another SCENARIO for her: she gave up smoking, cut down the grog, and began regular exercise. She COULD live to 90.
Jeez, that doctor was really devious/dumb in his scenario selection.
He should have given her the scenario of dying in a car accident later that day, and suggested she eats whatever the hell she likes – that would have really informed her, and helped her plan effectively for the future. . .
?
?
Give us abreak. If you cant handle scenario modelling try a dose of reality. The current research under SEACI shows ‘there are firm signals in the current drought that correlate with future projections of reduced rainfall in southern Australia,’
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/seaci/docs/media/MR080501_SEACI.pdf. There is still lots of uncertainty to be recognised, but only in relation to the evidence. It does not have a life of its own. Risk managers have to manage both and live with a bit of ambiguity.
“So it seems the government is reverting to scenario-modelling to determine its drought policy and will focus on a worst case scenario by way of a high emissions scenario.”
Do you ever step back and think for a bit about what you are writing, Jennifer. This is amazing, and from a trained scientist.
Janama – post a time series of wheat and sorghum production.
Reality is that many farmers have had 300 year worth of exceptional circumstances. Treasury knives are out for the money. I’m sure that drought frequency is just business as usual. (NOT)
QUESTION for Jen and Paul – let’s invert the issue.
Welcome to responsible climate policy 101.
It’s now your job to inform the government what to do about drought policy.
They have the Productivity Commission sussing out the economics, Peter Kenny from Agforce doing an all states tour to get the on ground vibe.
What would you suggest for some climate input for Treasury. They need something.
You could use median, averages, the last 30 years of data, 120 years or more of rainfall records, some CSIRO future climate science, sceptic predictions or state of Bazza’s liver or ??.
Are you going to use rainfall or also evaporation?
How do think you’ll advise on runoff.
What’s your plan? ………….
(no tricks implied – it’s a serious question before government and the nation – not to mention many landholders themselves and rural towns)
Did all you Socialists ever consider that people are responsible for their own lives and planning??
NAAAAHHHH!!! I didn’t think so. You think everyone is dumb and NEED the gubmint thinking and planning for you!!
Of course, if everyone is dumb where do you get the scientists and politicians and planners…
What you seem to miss is that most people learn from their mistakes, if they learn at all!!
Yeah, that’s how we won WWII. Everyone got a gun and caught a ship over to Europe and took on the Nazis.
“Did all you Socialists ever consider that people are responsible for their own lives and planning??NAAAAHHHH!!! I didn’t think so. You think everyone is dumb and NEED the gubmint thinking and planning for you!!”
What, the same so called socialists that are suggesting individuals can make a difference and it’s no use sitting on your hands whining about having to give up a few perks whilst China, the US and India do something about CO2 emissions? Kind of flies on the face of what has been said on the other thread. You lot should make up your minds.
“What you seem to miss is that most people learn from their mistakes, if they learn at all!!”
I don’t want my children to learn from your mistakes when it’s too late, because you will be dead and gone, the future generations wont.
Luke,
As I recall the Productivity Commission reportedly did produce an internal review that found the Stern view of climate change which continues to be the basis of the pain is necessary line but it sank without trace – “only three economists – what would they know? Flannery on ABC TV. There’s informed debate for you.
At the request of the Fed Govt the BoM and CSIRO once more consulted the Oracle [how they must have hated that] and GUESS WHAT?
SURPRISE!!
MORE CATASTASTROFE!!
This morning I towed my wooden dinghy 80k because the BoM said where I was going would be easterly breezes and fine AM and stronger winds and showers PM.
I got no breezes and rain AM and easterly breezes and fine PM.
That’s a 24 hour forcast.
What price a 24 year forcast?
Pardon me if I don’t genuflect to the Oracle.
Ah, Drongo, the digital dreamtime must have disrespected your totem animal in that scenario!
The fact is that computer generated models of future climate “scenarios” weren’t originally intended to be used as “predictive forecasts” to base socio-economic policy upon but the not so subtle difference is apparently impossible for the mass media, politicians and ultimately the public to discern.
If anyone here imagines that, like in some CIA movie, there is a yottaflop computer model of the most complex nonlinear system in the Solar System that can empirically predict the state of the climate some decades in advance, please do us all a favour, put down the Douglas Adams’ novel, and read this:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm#L_0753
Computer models function best when designed to study very specific inputs to limited systems in isolation to learn more about the mechanics of said system. Research should be contained to an academic orientated outcome. If allowed to escape from the lab, because there is no empirical virtual evidence (another oxymoron) computer scenarios are subject to whatever sort of politics one wishes to project upon them.
In fact, now that the model results have escaped from the lab and into parliament, it is highly probably that the socio-political feedback on the models is as much a parameter in the scenario development as the so-called empirical inputs!
That’s the reality in the virtual plastic world of computer modelling. The complex fractal nature of modeling depends on which strange attractor you favour. It’s the ultimate post-modern narrative. There is no truth, just nonlinear scenarios. Your scenario is no more real than any other.
To discriminate one scenario over another as the basis for real world socio-economic engineering policy simply means that you have projected your political values upon one scenario above all others and have decided to create physical reality based on your “belief” in that specific narrative.
That’s fine. As long as you understand that is what you are doing and as long as that is communicated to the public.
But please don’t mistake a digital dreamtime for a physical reality worth becoming holier-than-thou over.
OK Wes – you get 10 respect credits for saying yottaflop. You get fined 3 respect credits for indulging drongsey in a “sample size of one” discussion.
Yes, Wes & Luke, it all went over my head but I love that “digital dreamtime”.
“This morning I towed my wooden dinghy 80k because the BoM said where I was going would be easterly breezes and fine AM and stronger winds and showers PM.
I got no breezes and rain AM and easterly breezes and fine PM.
That’s a 24 hour forcast.
What price a 24 year forcast?”
Climate is not weather. It’s like the difference between predicting the height of the next wave and predicting the tide.
“Computer models function best when designed to study very specific inputs to limited systems in isolation to learn more about the mechanics of said system. Research should be contained to an academic orientated outcome. If allowed to escape from the lab, because there is no empirical virtual evidence (another oxymoron) computer scenarios are subject to whatever sort of politics one wishes to project upon them.
In fact, now that the model results have escaped from the lab and into parliament, it is highly probably that the socio-political feedback on the models is as much a parameter in the scenario development as the so-called empirical inputs!
That’s the reality in the virtual plastic world of computer modelling. The complex fractal nature of modeling depends on which strange attractor you favour. It’s the ultimate post-modern narrative. There is no truth, just nonlinear scenarios. Your scenario is no more real than any other.
To discriminate one scenario over another as the basis for real world socio-economic engineering policy simply means that you have projected your political values upon one scenario above all others and have decided to create physical reality based on your “belief” in that specific narrative.
That’s fine. As long as you understand that is what you are doing and as long as that is communicated to the public.
But please don’t mistake a digital dreamtime for a physical reality worth becoming holier-than-thou over. Computer models function best when designed to study very specific inputs to limited systems in isolation to learn more about the mechanics of said system. Research should be contained to an academic orientated outcome. If allowed to escape from the lab, because there is no empirical virtual evidence (another oxymoron) computer scenarios are subject to whatever sort of politics one wishes to project upon them.
In fact, now that the model results have escaped from the lab and into parliament, it is highly probably that the socio-political feedback on the models is as much a parameter in the scenario development as the so-called empirical inputs!
That’s the reality in the virtual plastic world of computer modelling. The complex fractal nature of modeling depends on which strange attractor you favour. It’s the ultimate post-modern narrative. There is no truth, just nonlinear scenarios. Your scenario is no more real than any other.
To discriminate one scenario over another as the basis for real world socio-economic engineering policy simply means that you have projected your political values upon one scenario above all others and have decided to create physical reality based on your “belief” in that specific narrative.
That’s fine. As long as you understand that is what you are doing and as long as that is communicated to the public.
But please don’t mistake a digital dreamtime for a physical reality worth becoming holier-than-thou over. ”
Even a one dimensional model is useful. If I take this mix of inputs, what will my temperature be in a test tube? It’s a valid approach, and does not pretend to incorporate the various cycles that are part of the climate. All they are saying is, take this mix of inputs, and how much will the earth warm? You can have all kinds of chaotic behaviour inside, if you force that system inside the atmosphere higher, it’s going to go higher, even if cycles make temperatures rise and fall against the general trend along the way.
Computers are getting more powerful now, and the models more sophiscticated. Hadley is trying to incorporate the cycles in their models, but it is still early days. The recent global conference for modelers is planning software and hardware that will be able to get down to a much finer resolution than is currently available, so they can model cloud and storm behaviour, such as cyclones. That’s all very interesting, but I doubt that there will be much change in the main point of interest, the temperature of the whole system.
As it is, the CSIRO predicted reduced rainfall for the South East of Australia, and they were right. An amazing validation of the predictive power of models.
Although it’s not too hard to see why. The South of Australia has depended on the passing bands of low pressure systems for rain. As the climate warms, these low pressure systems are moving further South. The oceans are now getting our rain. 🙁
Yes, Stj, climate isn’t weather, but weather is the stuff that makes climate.
Predicting the height of the next wave all depends on your fractal scale. If it’s geological the next ice age is simply the next gentle lap by the banks of her own lagoon.
So while Gaia sucks her thumb and wanders, didn’t anybody tell you, didn’t anybody see, that Sunday is on the phone to Monday and Tuesday is on the phone to Garnaut.
Meanwhile, reality comes in through the bathroom window.
Perhaps you should quit the police department and get yourself a steady job.
SJT
Wonderful, who did you plagiarise that from?
Computer modelling is really a subset of human thought, which itself is predicated by the number of ideas on which that thought is based.
In terms of computer modelling climate, how many basic assumptions are made?
There is a persistent rumour that GCM’s assume a starting point of a circle, so maybe we continue the discussion when you could provide evidence that computer modelling of the earth’s climate involves a rotating spherical body.
And if you plead that this is not possible within the contraints of existing computing technology, (though the human brain seems not limited by this) then you would have doubly proven that existing computer models are crap.
And though Wes thought I knew the answer
Well I knew but I could not say.
SJT,
You EXPECT climate but GET weather.
You don’t expect tides but get waves.
Wad are ya?
Apart from death and taxes, there are two other certainties in life: at any given point in time, there will be a select group convinced that they can foresee the future…and there will be an even larger group, who are willingly duped by those prophets of the day.
No-one can predict the future. No-one ever has and, despite having whacking great super-computers, no-one is doing it today, either.
“Apart from death and taxes, there are two other certainties in life: at any given point in time, there will be a select group convinced that they can foresee the future…and there will be an even larger group, who are willingly duped by those prophets of the day.”
Yeah, I know, beating up on the economists again….
“Climate is not weather. It’s like the difference between predicting the height of the next wave and predicting the tide.”
Actually, no, not at all. The tide charts I use are good at predicting tomorrow’s high and low tides,as they are at predicting next week’s, month’s and year’s. Is there a GCM you know of that can predict the global avg temp. for any future year to the same level of accuracy?
And work on your analogical reasoning skills. The analogy would be between predicting the highest and lowest wave tomorrow and the avg height of waves for the year one, ten, fifty and a hundred years hence.
“highest and lowest wave tomorrow”
nope – would be more like predicting the above on average over a 10 year band centred on some point in the future.
Trying to make climate scenarios act like weather predictions is not the point at all.
GCMs on climate change are not about predicting individual years accurately – that’s just silly.
TheWord,
I agree. Isn’t there an old law that makes it an offence to claim to predict the future? I think it was used against gipsies with crystal balls. Now we have nail-biters with computers. Repent, the end is nigh. I have made a note in my diary of Tony Burke’s statements on TV last Sunday – in a year or two, when the next election is looming, I will revisit them.
You ought to read more carefully, Luke. Is tomorrow’s weather forecast an “average over a 10 year band centred on some point in the future”? No, it isn’t.
“GCMs on climate change are not about predicting individual years accurately – that’s just silly”
I know, as I said above, they’re an average. The analogy stands.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/gavin-schmidt-corrects-for-enso-ipcc-projections-still-falsify/comment-page-2/#comment-3957
Lucia’s comment is on point.
Green Davey,
Hitler brought in that law but then resorted to just shooting them on sight.
In a year or two do you think the computer prediction carpetbaggery will still work?
I expect it will.
“Look guys, our ratings have dropped. Time to consult the Oracle again and get that siren cranked up”.
Best political stick ever invented!
Luke’s comment “”GCMs on climate change are not about predicting individual years accurately – that’s just silly””
Yes, he is right, GCM’s are designed to predict chaos precisely. Isn’t that what Dr Karl Kruznelski more or less reckoned on the ABC a couple of days ago?
Louis, do you have link for that?
Why is it that the “climate scientists” conflate AGW with drought, as if drought is really to do with temperature rather than precipitation.
It seems that we don’t really have a sound understanding of precisely what it is that causes the periodic droughts that have plagued Australia since white settlement (at least).
However, it seems to me that Janama, in the first comment on this thread, has it right when he/she says that we should be focussing on re-hydrating the Australian landscape as Peter Andrews argues.
Interested folk might like to visit http://www.naturalsequencefarming.com.
Key findings of the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO report include:
• Under a high scenario, droughts could occur twice as often, cover twice the area and be more severe in key agricultural production areas;
Tony Burk’s ministerial release refers to this as;
Australia could experience drought twice as often and the events will be twice as severe within 20 to 30 years, according to a new Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO report.
In effect, marketing that a high end scenario as, (for policy purposes,) a prediction.
A high end scenario refers to computer modeling –virtual science. Set up the model, then run “what ifs” by tweaking the inputs. (We do this with budgets.) Everything depends upon the integrity of the inputs, and of the assumptions of the programmers (or budgeter) and both are seriously at risk from the GIGO factor.
The above is a good example of virtuous corruption of virtual science. Here it is the Ministerial PR staff virtuously corrupting virtual science. This leaves both the BOM and CSIRO open to loss of public trust and standing.
32 comments deleted following a request from a reader – and noting many comments were off topic and made various assumptions about race and religon that could not be substantiated.