JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

The BOM & CSIRO report: It’s what they don’t say that matters

Ken Stewart has scanned the trend maps at BOM (Bureau of Meteorology), and his point is spot on. As soon as I saw the neat joint six page advertising pamphlet for the climate-theory-backed-by-bankers, I wondered what happened to the first 60 years of last century, and Ken found it. Did the BOM forget they have hundreds of data points from back then? Did they forget to use their own Website, where you can pick-a-trend, any-trend, and choose the one with err…more convenient results? Or is it the case that their collective mission is not necessarily to provide Australians with the most complete and appropriate information available, but with what the bureaucracy needs them to know? And what they need them to know, apparently, is the carefully censored version of the truth that will keep government ministers happy (Let us tax them more!), keep department heads smiling (Let the climate cash cow continue!), and last, but not least, help staff feel good (We’re sure we’re helping the environment!).

Why censor half their own data?

The trend map page works exquisitely well (I am happy to praise the BOM Web site team). Compare these two trend maps:

Australian Rainfall Trends 1960-2009

Australian Rainfall Trends 1960-2009

The brown bits are the parts that used to get lots more rain in the 1960s. The dark green bits are areas that are quite a lot wetter at the moment than they used to be. But, if we go back past 1960, back to when records started to come together, the trends are decidedly less scary, and, all in all, you’d think Australia might be getting a bit more rain than it did a century ago (you’d be right).

Missing Graph: 1900-2009 Rainfall trends in Australia

1900-2009 Rainfall trends in Australia

Note that it took not just one national institution to come up with the publication that ignores 60 years of data. The pamphlet is the combined effort of the CSIRO and the BOM, both funded by the people of Australia.

Don’t mention the rising rainfall trend

The team carefully observes that “total rainfall on the Australian continent has been relatively stable”, but doesn’t mention that it has actually increased, as David Stockwell points out. This is supposed to be the state of the Australian climate? According to the BOM itself (see the fine print on that graph), our rainfall has increased by about 6mm a decade over the last 100 years.

Rainfall Australia annual anomaly

Annual Rainfall in Australia 1900-2010

Graph Source

Is there any reason (other than the obvious) for choosing such a censored set of data? Fans of the theory of man-made global warming will rightly point out that most of our emissions of CO2 have come since 1960, and they might dutifully add that “things are worse than we thought” (i.e., the trend is speeding up).

Except on a global scale, the temperature trends of the carbon-forced era (post 1960) aren’t any different than those in the pre-carbon-forced era.

Missing Graph: Hadley Global Temperatures 1850-2010

HAdley Global Temperatures 1850-2010

And in science, more data is always a useful thing–especially when it isn’t what you expected. The only reason to censor data is to herd people into reaching one particular conclusion.

Andrew bolt had a fast wrap on the joint BOM CSIRO document.

Media (e.g., The Age) soaked up news of the “report”.

Thanks to Ken for the heads up and help!

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.1/10 (8 votes cast)
The BOM & CSIRO report: It's what they don't say that matters, 7.1 out of 10 based on 8 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2cbj784

124 comments to The BOM & CSIRO report: It’s what they don’t say that matters

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Oh Dear, Oh Dear.

    And then they wonder why scientists, and the study of science, is falling into disrepute.

    The next question is, how do we make this go mainstream fast enough to force them to pull the pamphlet?

    00

  • #

    We put 7 questions to Dr Megan Clark, CSIRO chief, after ABC failed to ask the tough questions. They are listed below. We have not yet heard from Dr Clark?

    1. CSIRO State of the Climate (http://www.csiro.gov.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html) claims to be sourced from peer reviewed articles, however the actual references are not cited. Can CSIRO provide the peer reviewed references it used in the preparation of this document such that it might be subject to independent scrutiny by independent scientists.

    2. The charts showing temperature, rainfall and hot and cold day maximums do not show data prior to 1960. BMR claims to have been observing and reporting on weather in Australia for over 100 years. Indeed Dr Megan Clark states that “we are very blessed in this country to have some very, very robust data and very long-term [data].” Why did CSIRO and BMR not use its complete set of “very, very robust data and very long-term [data]” in depicting changes in these parameters? Does omitting an earlier period of warming between 1910 and 1940 for which BMR has records affect the resulting charts? What would be the effect of including this data on the charts presented in CSIRO’s snapshot? Can CSIRO provide the public with updated charts showing the effect of including the full set of records?

    3. Climate models for eastern Australian show conflicting results with both an increase and decrease in projected rainfall. Why has the CSIRO focused on model results that show a decrease for this report? For a summary of model results that show a range of projections see: “Assessment of rainfall simulations from global climate models and implications for climate change impact on runoff studies” by CSIRO scientists F.H.S. Chiew, D.G.C. Kirono, D. Kent and J. Vaze http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim09/I13/chiew.pdf

    4. Assuming current rates of sea level rise (3mm.year) continue providing a net increase of 300 mm for the 21st century can CSIRO comment on why this constitutes a cause for major concern?

    5. In regard to Ocean acidification. Given that ph levels will remain above a neutral point of 7. Is it not more correct to say that oceans may become “less alkaline” rather than “more acidic”.

    6. CSIRO points out the obvious in indicating that climate change is real. The real issues to Australian society surrounds whether anthropogenic change will be dangerous. As recent peer reviewed publications (eg. Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi, 2009- On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/) indicate that IPCC climate models have overstated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 increases. Can the CSIRO comment on the certainty behind predictions of future impacts of climate on human populations?

    7 Dr Clarke describes the Australian dataset as “robust” , however in allegedly leaked documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia a programmer named “Harry” describes the Australian temperature dataset in the following way.”I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
    “getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data”
    Why does CRU programmer “Harry” describe the Australian temperature database as “poor” and compare it to garbage? Doesn’t this contradict your assertion that the data is robust?

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/abc-casts-more-heat-rather-than-light.html

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Jo,

    I have just looked at the temp trend map for mean temperatures and I’m confused, going through the full series of maps 1910 to present all the way to 1970 to present.

    I follow the warming trend from 1910 – present to 1930 – present but with an acknowledged cooling between 1940 and the 1970′s, instead of a continued decadal warming with each map, should there not be stasis in warming on the maps between 1940 and 1970 or even a reduction in warming.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    here’s a comment I posted on Ken’s blog a couple of days ago
    … here’s someone who has done a fair bit of home work on the ARCS network
    http://rcs-audit.blogspot.com/2010/03/air-bases.html
    and a reader’s comment at Andrew Bolt’s blog on
    18.3.01
    Eloi (Reply)
    Thu 18 Mar 10 (12:10am) 18/3/10
    Installment 3 of the CSIRO+BoM “robust, peer-reviewed” climate report – this time looking at the Reference Climate Station (RCS) Network with the help of Google Earth. The RCS is the BoM’s subset of monitoring stations used for “high quality, long-term climate monitoring” (their words, not mine).
    According to the BoM website, the stations are selected for their “location in an area away from large urban centres”. In all probability, this is the set of stations that was used for the CSIRO+BoM work of fiction.
    The RCS comprises 103 stations, covering all states and territories, plus the Antarctic Territory and several offshore islands.
    An analysis of these 103 stations shows that:
    - 49 (47.6%) are airports (including 6 RAAF/RAN air bases)
    - 16 (15.5%) are Post Offices or locations within a population centre
    - 14 (13.66%) are locations just outside a town
    - 9 (8.7%) are located at lighthouses (big lumps of cement)
    - 15 (14.6%) are locations that could be classified as “rural”
    So, it appears that of the locations selected for Australia’s “high quality, long-term climate monitoring”, nearly half are at airports, and over a quarter are in or adjacent to population centres. Even most of the Antarctic stations are located amongst the settlements.
    (end of comment)

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    here’s another link
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/end-phase-of-the-climate-wars
    this article is written by a New Zealand lawyer; wonderfully succinct and worth sending to all Parliamentarians having regard to the imminence of the ETS bill before the Senate

    00

  • #
    Ian George

    Ken is totally correct but even their 1960-2009 rainfall map is ‘sus’.
    At the moment I’m checking stations around Alice Springs to see if there has been a drop-off in that area as reported in the CSIRO statement but the neighbouring stations show many gaps in the most recent data making them not worthy of inclusion.
    However, at Alice Springs Airport (station 015590) itself, the average rainfall for the 1960s was 212mms/year. The average rainfall for 2000-2009 was 292mm/year.
    After the 1970s (406mms/year and the wettest decade), 2000-2009 ties with the 1980s as being the second wettest decade since the 1940s.
    One could hardly call that a decline in rainfall as shown on their map.
    In addition, the average rain for the Alice was 237mm/year for the period 1940-1969 compared with 271mm/year for the period 1980-2009.
    Also there are problems with their temp map around Gladstone showing a much higher increase per decade than the raw data shows. I think you have also highlighted that problem recently.

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Rereke asks:

    “The next question is, how do we make this go mainstream fast enough to force them to pull the pamphlet?”

    How, in general, does the sceptical view reach more people? I would love to see Jo Nova using her knowledge and alluring communication skills in a newspaper column dedicated to the subject of Climate Change. Jo would certainly be credentialed as a writer and she demonstrates way more erudition and investigative skills than do the columnists we see ringing the climate alarm bells. Given the prominence of Climate Change and the inundation of propaganda that one receives, a weekly column from the opposing side would hardly be too much. I believe it would sell newspapers.

    [I'm all for it, any requests to newspapers to syndicate or commission would be most welcome. Third party endorsements are worth so much..:-) Thanks! --JN]

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Sean that’s an interesting idea and maybe with Jo’s permission you could suggest it to a newspaper; which one would you choose; in my view the best way in which each of us sceptics can promote the view is by writing letters to the main stream media including tv stations; writing to our elected representatives on a regular basis; spreading the word amongst our friends and acquaintances; supportive sites like Jo’s are great but we shouldn’t spend all our time and effort on them because in a number of cases we are preaching to the converted

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    more on the rcs network
    http://rcs-audit.blogspot.com/2010/03/dodgy-post-offices.html
    Sunday, March 21, 2010

    The Dodgy Post Offices
    Next to airports, an historical location for weather stations has been post office buildings, and this is the next category of “high quality, long-term climate monitoring” stations under examination. When looking at the examples provided below, it is worth keeping in mind that stations such as these have been at the forefront of developing the narrative that global warming is real, is happening faster than we previously thought, and that man’s contribution to this impending disaster is unequivocal.
    but ….

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    A continuing problem is that no matter what the change, alarmists will have us believe it’s all due to humans. Increased rainfall, decreased rainfall, increased snowfall, decreased snowfall, more intense storms, less intense storms, etc etc.. It’s the very reason why they’ve been referring to the whole situation as climate change, rather than “global warming”. It won’t matter if the temp goes up or down, it’s supposedly all due to humans.

    I therefore predict that someone from the BOM and/or CSIRO will say the increase in rainfall will be attributed to human activity.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    My great-great-grandfather pioneered this station in 1886. For the first three years they camped with the cattle in a nomadic fashion, while they(the cattle)learned their new ‘home range’. In 1889 the womenfolk came up, and a permanent base was established along with a rain gauge.
    From that day until now, every drop of rain that has fallen in that gauge has been entered into the station records. I computerised these records in the mid-90s, and that allowed me to analyse the data.
    The first thing I realised was that our actual long-term mean rainfall was 350 mm even though the BOM maps showed us to be in a 400 mm rainfall zone.
    When I cherry picked the driest 30 years, it was from 1921 till 1950 with a mean rainfall of 305 mm.
    The wettest 30 years was from 1971 till 2000 with a mean rainfall of 405 mm.
    There is a good reason why the whole global warming scam never wash with Australian farmers. We have our own records and we study them closely.

    20

  • #
  • #
    Bulldust

    As I pointed out on Aussie blogs the day the Annual Australian Climate Statement 2009 was published online by BoM, they went a step further in their misdirection on rainfall by heading the rainfall section with the following title:

    Another drier than average year in the southeast mainland

    Clearly intended to give the impression that Australia is drying out rather than the truth, which is that there has been a slight upward trend in rainfall on the continent in the last hundred years or so (as demonstrated in the above graph). The increase in rainfall was obvious just from eye-balling the graph under the offending headline. I guess they are relying on the fact that science education in Australian schools is woeful these days, and half the population can’t interpret a simple bar graph.

    Like the IPCC… it is often not the scientific data or studies that are so damning as the policy-driven, word-smithing that is used to describe the findings.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Albert

    Dorothea Mackellar 1885-1968, at age 19 in 1904 wrote “of drought and flooding rain”
    The CSIRO nor the BOM have not shaken her observation.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Dave N: #10

    … no matter what the change, alarmists will have us believe it’s all due to humans. Increased rainfall, decreased rainfall, increased snowfall, decreased snowfall, more intense storms, less intense storms, etc etc.

    Ah, but that works both ways, Dave.

    I recently got caught in a rain storm on my way to a function. When I arrived, the host offered to take my raincoat to hang it up. As I handed it over, I made a wry remark about “global warming”, to which a passing alarmist snapped, “climate change!”.

    My response was to shrug, and say, “always does, always has, always will” The venomous look I received in response, said it all.

    00

  • #
    Keith

    The ABC news hour Countrywide, which had so far escaped AGW hysteria, came out swinging with the usual AGW claptrap, lead by the recent CSIRO news release. Followed closely by tame farmers participating in several (govt funded) studies in regard to climate tolerance of cereal grains. I was disappointed to see one of the few remaining positive views of the country being sacrificed to the Gaia god.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Its great that we have people who are willing to do the hard yards here. The CSIRO and the BOM have been caught out like naughty high-school children hiding hiding a packet of cigarettes behind their backs. They are not even very good at it. They lie like Clinton. As soon as a I saw the emphasis on “the last 50 years” I thought …. So 1960 was a cold year! You just look at the wording to find what they are hiding. The stupid cretinous leftist filth. What if they had chosen the last 75 years?

    So they were lying to the public. But lying like a lawyer. In that they are telling lies and misleading people. Without any one sentence being a LITERAL lie.

    Why is this put up with? Why is this not a simple open and shut case calling for resignations and sackings? We must progress for calls for resignations and sackings. Else we are just sitting around feeling good about ourselves for being smarter than some true head-cases.

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    As any thinking person knows, the climate has always changed and will continue to change. However, there are those who are now convinced that climate change is only the result of mankind. How does one correct this myth? For starters, we could sue any organisation such as the CSIRO that even implies that man has caused all the climate change even though they state it’s their belief it’s all man’s fault. Just the way they present climate reports is enough to convince many it is man’s and only man’s fault, thus they are publishing falsehoods and should be brought to account for doing so. They instead should state every time they release such data that it’s their opinion although man probably does alter the climate, it’s unknown to what extent man is doing so given the current scientific evidence. Without such a qualification, they are guilty of association with the false claim that AGW is leading to a catastrophic climate change.

    00

  • #

    [...] is the carefully censored version of the truth that will keep government ministers happy…." The BOM & CSIRO report: It’s what they don’t say that matters « JoNova . __________________ ………… …just some thoughts from a nomadic plebeian Bio [...]

    00

  • #
    Paul Z.

    5 truths about AGW* I hold to be self-evident:

    1) Al Gore says we need to ask ourselves some tough questions about AGW, but when Al Gore gets asked some tough questions about AGW, Al Gore tells security to get tough with those asking the questions.

    2) AGW proponents must have belonged to a cult of house painters in their previous lives because they have a predilection for whitewashing. Michael Mann inquiry? Whitewash. UEA inquiry? Whitewash. IPCC independent inquiry? Whitewash. Further note how AGW proponents believe that painting all our rooftops white will reflect sunlight and help mitigate AGW.

    3) AGW is really about global cooling because it is the ultimate snowball: using middle-class taxpayers money to fund the lies that will create the policies that will tax middle-class taxpayers even more to fund even more lies that will create the next wave of policies to further tax middle-class taxpayers even more etc.

    4) For some reason, AGW scientist-advocates are all scared shitless for at least a week when they hear the name “Steve McIntyre”. Which is a good thing, because that means less AGW-causing methane gas is released and helps to offset the bullshit coming out of their mouths.

    5) Incredibly, everything wrong in our world can be traced back to AGW. Birds shrinking? AGW. Snowstorms? AGW. Drought? Hurricanes? Famine? Poverty? Violence? Glaciers melting? Polar bears dying? All caused by AGW. The truth is, Al Gore is solely responsible for all of these problems, especially for killing the polar bears. He really is. Because Al Gore created AGW. Remember to tell your kids.
    ===
    *AGW = Al Gore’s Wallet.

    00

  • #
    spangled drongo

    Those raifall trend maps like their SL trend maps are wrong.
    Some of those points in SEQ that are shown on the 1900-2009 map as decreasing have actually increased by up to 125 mm PA. This is just one:

    http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Mt_Tamborine.jpg

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    MarcH @ 2

    I don’t suppose (Spin) Doctor Megan has got back to you with some answers has she? If she can’t or won’t then I agree with the Birdman – some wholesale sackings are called for.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #

    Speedy #23, no reply as yet. A copy of the questions will be sent to science Minister Carr.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Keith @17
    You will find that the majority of farmers are skeptical of AGW. What support there is comes from the ‘corporate farmers’ championed by the National Farmers Federation. It is all about future revenue from carbon and methane sequestration schemes scams. If Rudd has his way major investors stand to gain substantially and I expect to see many farmers accepting buyouts as property values increase. As they exit the industry you can expect problems.The long term effects will be considerable in terms of price rises and food security.
    AGW really stands head and shoulders above every other scam it embraces us all rather than just the greedy and gullible.

    00

  • #
    Asperamanka

    I have question about butterflies. I know it is off-topic, but I can’t see where else to ask.

    You may have seen reports of a study that claimed to show that butterflies emerge earlier now, in-line with “global warming”. Clearly, the trend to earlier emergence cannot be caused by “global warming” because it’s not warming. So why are the butterflies earlier now? What ever the mechanism, it ought to be fairly easy to replicate, even by enthusiastic amateur naturalists. Anyone care to set up an experiment to test other possible factors?

    00

  • #
    Tel

    The trend map page works exquisitely well (I am happy to praise the BOM Web site team).

    There do seem to be some hard working folks at the BOM, it would be unfair to paint them all with the same brush as the politicians who run the place. The reality of working for government is you are always at a conflict of interest between your real employees (the taxpayers) and your department management who would like to keep the taxpayers in the dark.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs20a.pdf

    Note the highly unpublicized statement about Australia having the wettest period ever recorded rather recently.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    well Tel that’s an interesting comment; does that mean that public servants in democratic countries have the same duty to their government as in communistic countries;

    00

  • #
    janama

    I recently watched the Insight program from SBS on the dangers of sea level rise and it’s relation to council planning laws etc. Fortunately there was a prof from Newcastle uni who put everything in a rational perspective and pointed out that sea level changes around the world, it’s a moving target and to say sea level is rising is very hard to demonstrate.

    Another guest was the mayor of a Torres strait island who claimed that sea level rise was causing major damage to their islands and it was clearly a reality for them.

    A third guest was an expert from the CSIRO who was preaching alarmists jargon. What really got up me was that if he was a serious expert he might have taken the time to point out to the Islander that northern Australia and the Torres Strait islands and southern Papua is sinking hence the sea level rise!! of course he didn’t.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    March #2 and Speedy #23

    I wrote a similar letter to the CSIRO recently and duly received a reply. They won’t discuss or answer questions raised except those raised in peer reviewed papers. IOW If you are not a climate scientist how dare you question the great CSIRO and BoM. They instead gave me lots of links to the vast store of CSIRO papers supporting AGW. I did ask if the granting of nearly half billion dollars for clean coal research had caused a conflict of interest and if any funds went to in house scientists to falsify the AGW hypothesis. Neither question should require a peer reviewed paper IMHO but there you have it. You are Peeing in the wind if you expect a sensible answer from Megan et al.

    Writing to Senator Karr will have the same result. More effective is to write to a senate sceptic and get him/her to ask Karr. Under the rules the question MUST be put and the answer MUST come from the member (Karr) rather than a computer generated response from his office. The CSIRO and Bom are vulnerable through the Senate Estimates Procedures. Those called have to answer under oath. Try that.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “There do seem to be some hard working folks at the BOM, it would be unfair to paint them all with the same brush as the politicians who run the place. ”

    Right. I guess we can all see how the process of corruption works over time. And feel some sympathy for some of these people. But that doesn’t change the fact that the only way to solve the matter is to start sacking people by the bushel. After all we have big holes in the budget to fill. Naturally you can start sacking people with the expectation that you are going to lose a few good people. Even in that case the public sectors loss is the private sectors gain.

    “The reality of working for government is you are always at a conflict of interest between your real employees (the taxpayers) and your department management who would like to keep the taxpayers in the dark.”

    The reality is that we have got to keep sacking department managers until this is no longer the reality. It shows also why its such a good thing to sack from the top, more or less forcing the new bosses to change the working culture, and injecting within the hope, the realistic prospect, and indeed the thrill of promotional opportunities. Plus there is some justice in this. The bosses having had a good stretch at big fat taxpayer salaries, now winding up at the centrelink.

    Its a case of wanting the bosses out on the street and wanting the rest to change somewhat.

    00

  • #
    Otter

    Partial response to Asper~

    I have noticed that the spring and fall solstices don’t seem to quite line up with actual daylight (12 dark / 12 light) anymore. Too early in the morning here (East coast US), on top of too busy to do so, but I will Bet that the Earth’s ‘wobble’ has something to do with it.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Asperamanka:@26
    I have seen the article about butterflies, it seems to be just about everywhere. Though not all versions are complete.
    I read one version that I think was complete.
    What actually happened was, butterflies were raised in a lab under controlled conditions, and with warmer temperatures they emerged earlier.
    A computer model was then used to replicate temperatures for previous years, and this showed that butterflies were now emerging earlier because temperatures are warmer than they were 65 years ago (according to computer model).
    Quite simply in a brilliant scientific sleight of hand,they have used the output from a computer model to justify, the output from the same computer model.

    Nowhere did I see any indication that anyone had carefully documented the date that butterflies had emerged from their cocoons for the last 65 years.

    00

  • #
    spangled drongo

    “Note the highly unpublicized statement about Australia having the wettest period ever recorded rather recently.”

    Absolutely, and an interesting article too Tel, however you would wonder why they would put out this blurb when they knew it was already falsified by this “wettest period ever”.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Asperamanka: #26
    March 22nd, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    Asp the blog Australian Climate Madness has a fine article on this. from there you can access the research study (which has not been completed yet)

    The big point out of this is that the research does NOT refer to AGW or CO2. It’s more like PhD work for a bunch of students. The ABC, when reporting on this study, brought in David Karoly (who’d a thunk) who immediately tied the research in with AGW and claimed it was observational proof. KAROLY LIED. The A Hole wasn’t even involved in the research.

    Hope this helps.

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    An engineer and getting old I am, admiration I have always had for the list of magnificent scientists, that we in such a small population engendered. We still have these people coming to the fore, in arts science and medicine.
    I fear that the CSIRO has been usurped by the politically correct, and the scientists cow-towwed by fear and threat.
    One scientist who dared buck the system hinted as such, to me as an Australian of the old order this is unacceptable.
    We the public pay their wages, that makes them public servants. They are not lackeys of the government, They are our paid scientists, the questions put to this Dr Clark should be answered forth- with. But don’t hold your breath.
    Jo, if I knew anybody in the newspaper game I would gladly push you forward for a gig.
    Information is power, these people intent on creating a brave new world, without personal freedom by control of information, started at a time before the internet. It is choking them, and they are reacting. Albeit badly, as this latest global warming flier shows.
    Just keep revealing the truth and it slowly, but inexorably filters world wide, and, eventually into the MSM. These buggers have been brain washing people, corrupting our education system and causing consternation in thinking people for 30 years. Now the internet fights back,’ might be a good movie title’
    Thank you to all those people with the skills to take apart the BS, show the truth and post it.
    W.S.Job

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Graeme Bird: #31
    March 22nd, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    Hi Birdy

    I’m all for mass clean outs of public sectors. What we need RIGHT NOW, is for the opposition shadow ministers (at least a couple) to state that they will clean out the departments if they get elected. Then we’ll watch some of these cowards adjust their behaviour.
    Nothing like fearing the loss of your overpaid cushy job.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    … does that mean that public servants in democratic countries have the same duty to their government as in communistic countries?

    Every communist country so far has claimed to be democratic so I think you are going to need to carefully define your terms in order to create a question that has an answer. What are the particular items that you believe makes one type of government different to another?

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Aspermanka
    It is probably a pack of lies from some publicly funded climate criminal. There have been similar reports about birds but from my perspective, living on a farm, birds know a lot more about climate than the retards looking for any excuse to promote AGW.

    Most years on our property the hills and green parrots and magpies hatch from early spring onwards but in good years, like last year they hatch early to take advantage of the conditions. The same applies to migratory birds their arrival and departure often vary but they always seem to pick the optimum time, how they do this is a mystery but I know they don’t follow some stupid AGW agenda.

    It’s a sad state of affairs when a bloody parrot outperforms the BOM and CSIRO on a regular basis.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Graeme Bird: #31
    Baa Humbug: #37

    OK. You want the sacking of science administrators who are arranging the promotion of distorted AGW information.

    How do you propose to get those science administrators sacked when
    (a) they are appointed by politicians
    (b) those politician are the only people who could do the sacking,
    (c) those politicians are providing the income for those science administrators who deserve sacking, and
    (d) those politicians are providing the income for the insitutions that employ those who deserve sacking?

    Wanting something is not enough. Finding the means to get it is also required. (I want a personal helicopter and a pilot to fly it for me. As yet, nobody has suggested how I could get this.)

    So, discussion of how these pople need to be sacked is pointless. The only pertinent discussion of this matter would be a viable suggestion for how to get them sacked without their substition by similar ‘placemen’.

    Therefore, in my opinion, we should constrain our considerations to methods for informing the general public of the facts of the distorted AGW promotional information. When enough people know the facts then politicians will be forced (by the public’s voting intentions) to clean out the Augean Stables.

    But, for now, I think we should concentrate on considerations of how to get the facts to the public because effort is wasted by discussion of the need to remove the manure from the stables.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    totally agree Richard; the priority is to be active but sometimes I guess people do need to mouth off but although it may be satisfying it doesn’t achieve anything

    00

  • #
    Cement a friend

    With any data examination it depends where one starts and one finishes.
    People are talking about the present rain fall in Queensland being one in hundred years. But to say that one really needs several hundred year periods.
    In our area, record (from measurements starting 1892)yearly rainfall occurred in 1893 (3.8m) and 1898 (4.0m including 1.1m in 3days in January 1898). The Federation drought started in 1900, in our area there was a record low rainfall in 1902 (510mm) and below average rainfall occurred through to 1911. The latter was a longer period than the recent drought where we had below average rainfall from 2000 to 2007 ie close to 100yrs between the two droughts but the recent drought was less severe. On the map, our area is marked in as getting less rain over the 109 year period. That is certainly not true. In our area there is no significant trend. The average monthly standard deviation is around 125mm. Around 1900 there were many more recording sites at post offices than at present. Maybe BOM have selected data to suit their purpose.
    The story with temperature is the same Warwick Hughes, eg http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?cat=20, has for many years been examining records and showing BOM interpretations are wrong.

    00

  • #
    Peter of Sydney

    Richard S Courtney: March 22nd, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    Richard, on the face of it you are right but for one very important problem. The politicians have all the necessary means to continue the AGW fraud regardless of what the truth is. The reason is the truth is rubbished by most of the media. Rudd is still on a dream run to victory in this regard. He has time on his side. Given enough time people will tire of the AGW debate. I see it already happening in many circles. Time will tell if he really ends up succeeding. One way to stop it is to kick him out at the next election. If he still wins, which is very possible, then I’m afraid we have little hope truth winning in the end, which is not unusual with politicians of his caliber and makeup. Hitler was a good example, albeit too extreme.

    00

  • #

    [...] why we no longer trust the CSIRO and wonder why we don't trust what the scientist are telling us. The BOM & CSIRO report: It’s what they don’t say that matters « JoNova The scientific comunity has only got themselves to blame. Tom Nelson: Alarmists should be stunned [...]

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    allen mcmahon:
    March 22nd, 2010 at 9:06 pm

    I think we’re being too harsh on the students who have done the research on the butterflies. They just did their work. The sham occurred when the ABC brought in David Karoly to comment on this research who proceeded to link the study to AGW as observational proof.

    Take a look at the study at the link I provided at #35

    Richard

    As usual you are absolutely correct, but in our defence, we sometimes like to-need to- vent our frustrations. Sadly we lack your focus and dedication.
    For my part, I’ve had my head buried in lengthy tedious work on the IPCC report for the last 3 weeks helping Donna Laframboise. Some lighthearted blogging breaks the tedium.

    00

  • #
    Charlie Day

    Look, this got posted on a forum I go to, I feel I should put some sort of interpretation on here because this whole thing is just a mistake on the authors part.

    You do realise, the reason the 1900 map shows less of a trend is because it’s an increasing trend?

    It is the average for all the decades put together.

    So the further back you go, when the plus or minus rainfall was not as significant the average for all the decades will be less. It’s why when you click through all the other maps the average gets higher the close to the present.

    It’s the average plus or minus for each decade. Divided by the number of decades, that’s what the maps are.

    Also the trend graph at the end, actually shows warming for the period and a reduced decreasing trend before the final warming trend if you actually look at it and the data. The co2 means that the natural cycles don’t still exist, except when it cools, it doesn’t cool as much, and so when it warms it starts warming from a warmer place, all meaning the cycles continue but gradually getting warmer and not as cool between.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Peter of Sydney:

    In response to my posting at #40 that concluded:

    Therefore, in my opinion, we should constrain our considerations to methods for informing the general public of the facts of the distorted AGW promotional information. When enough people know the facts then politicians will be forced (by the public’s voting intentions) to clean out the Augean Stables.

    But, for now, I think we should concentrate on considerations of how to get the facts to the public because effort is wasted by discussion of the need to remove the manure from the stables.

    You reply at #43 saying:

    Richard, on the face of it you are right but for one very important problem. The politicians have all the necessary means to continue the AGW fraud regardless of what the truth is. The reason is the truth is rubbished by most of the media.

    I understand and I agree that difficulty. But, with respect, I think that stresses the importance of my point.

    The difficulty can only be overcome by
    (a) getting the main media to publish the facts of AGW
    and/or
    (b) bi-passing that media and getting the facts of AGW directly to the public.

    Ms Nova is doing her bit on (b) very well. And I think the rest of us should concentrate our minds and efforts on methods to address both (a) and (b).

    I would welcome your further thoughts on the difficulty and/or how we may perhaps address it.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Charlie Day:

    At #46 you assert:

    The co2 means that the natural cycles don’t still exist, except when it cools, it doesn’t cool as much, and so when it warms it starts warming from a warmer place, all meaning the cycles continue but gradually getting warmer and not as cool between.

    Really? And your evidence for that is?

    The world has been warming from the Little Ice Age (LIA) for ~300 years. I think we agree this is a result of a natural cycle. If CO2 were accentuating that warming then
    (1) rates of warming should be increasing in the successive warming phases
    and
    (2) rates of cooling should be reducing in the successive cooling phases.

    But those alterations to rates of global temperature change are not observed. Even Phil Jones admits that the rates of warming are the same for the two most recent warming periods; i.e.
    ~1910 to ~1940 and ~1970 to 1998.

    But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by 8% since 1990.

    Are you suggesting that the reduction in the natural rate of recovery from the LIA precisely matches the warming rate induced by the increased atmospheric CO2? I accept that such a remarkable coincidence is possible, but it is very unlikely.

    And why introduce your suggestion of the hypothesised significant effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration when you admit the natural cycles exist? The natural cycles have caused all the previous global temperature variations and nothing unusual and/or unprecedented in global temperature change has been observed in recent decades or centuries.

    Simply, your suggestion is possible but is very unlikely and is used as an explanation for why there is no evidence for AGW. The fact is that there is no evidence for AGW and I know of no rational reason to make excuses for that lack of evidence.

    Would you agree with me that it would be sensible to avoid harmful changes to industrial and economic activities unless and until there is evidence for AGW?

    I look forward to your explanations of these matters and specific answers to my questions.

    Richard

    00

  • #

    Charlie, thanks for your concern, yes I do recognize that the 100 year trend is the average of the change from 100 years ago spread over 10 decades. But I disagree that this is singularly a “rising trend” as you put it (meaning accelerating trend across the century).

    So the further back you go, when the plus or minus rainfall was not as significant the average for all the decades will be less. It’s why when you click through all the other maps the average gets higher the close to the present.

    In a word — No.
    Trend graphs are horribly suspect to the fallacy of “let’s cherry-pick the start and end points”. If I did a trend of Australian rainfall from the 1970′s to the 1980′s (see graph 3 for an idea) I’d be going from a high rainfall to a low one. The difference would be huge. It would be totally the opposite direction to the 1960 – 2009 graph (the 1960′s were lower in rainfall, the 70′s were the wettest.)

    There is so much variation in the anomalies, unless there is some well understood reason why the trend from 1960 – 2009 is more significant than any other trend we should go for the trend with the most information.

    The last graph (#4), viewed through the prism of the carbon-lens does look like carbon is causing a rising trend under the oscillations. But look at it through a numbers-lens. Fully half of all “man-made” CO2 has occurred since 1975, and the trend for 1975-2009 is no different to the other cycles that preceded it. Remember the scary scenario is supposed to be accelerating, but the warming of the 1800′s was at the same rate. No SUVs, no coal fired electricity power stations, no modern grid, only a quarter of the number of people, and the world was also warming at 0.16/decade.

    The simplest and most likely explanation is that we are warming from the little ice age on an oscillating 30 year cycle and we didn’t know exactly what caused the LIA, so we don’t know exactly why things are warming, but it’s part of a longer trend that began more than 200 years ago.

    00

  • #

    Compare either of the two graphs here from the BOM trend site with the model predictions for precipitation from climatewizard.org.

    Just go there, choose “precipitation” (instead of temperature), choose “Global”, choose “Australia” from the drop down. On the left you can choose an emissions scenario and a computer model. At the top you can choose the time period (last 50 years, projected 2050s, projected 2080s).

    I don’t see any discrepancy at all between what is reported here and what climate science is showing us. So what’s the actual issue?

    FYI, it also doesn’t look like a very good scenario for Australia given the overlap of its population and current climate distribution with the projected precipitation changes. That is, the populated and fertile parts of the continent appear to be the target spots for reductions in rainfall, based on century-to-date trends,1960s to date trends (i.e. AGW period) and computer modeled future expectations, although there are some individual models that do give rainy, rosy predictions for Australia — it could be that down under is where everyone wants to migrate. Also, increases in rain over current grasslands might well produce more viable cropland to more than compensate for losses in current areas. You’d just have to rebuild all of your cities in entirely new locations.

    But mostly it looks like, if climate change does happen as predicted, Australia is going to be among the greatest losers. In 100 years Australia may well become Antarctica’s little sister, by pretty much becoming a lonely, barren, desert continent:

    Map of Australia’s Population Distribution
    Map of Australia’s Climate
    Map of Australian Agricultural Production by Value
    Map of Australia Grazing Density
    Map of Australia Cattle
    Map of Australia Sheep

    FYI, if you didn’t guess and violently over-reacted, I’m being “alarmist” just to yank the chains of people here, because I know it will get your undies all in a bunch. Sorry, I’m just in one of those sinister, impish moods right now; it will pass. ;)

    00

  • #
    janama

    Sphaerica: we’ve always been a “lonely, barren, desert continent:” those old maps from 1979 are hardly relevant today. Agriculture in Australia has changed dramatically in the past 30 years.

    00

  • #

    janama,

    Sorry, I didn’t even notice the publication dates, since these were from an Australian government site (you must be kidding me… 1970s?).

    The only things I easily found that are more contemporary are here:

    Australian Agriculture Assessment 2001
    Austrailia Agriculture Atlas (2010)

    00

  • #
    janama

    mate – even the Australian Agriculture Atlas is bullshit – it lists my area as dairy yet I know of only 3 dairy farms in my area. It used to be dairy back in the 50s and 60s but when Britain joined the EEC in 1972 the whole industry collapsed and they no longer needed our butter and cheese. Now it’s timber, cattle, grass seed and soy beans.

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    Maybe they consulted the Goracle! Bill Clinton says of him “Spring otherwise known to Al Gore as proof of global warming.”
    I find it unbelievable that 100 stations or across Australia can tell us much, interesting but about all.
    Sphaerica #5o janama is right predictions are very prone to error. Neils Bohr said “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future”. Don’t believe me go and read past predictions see how they shape up. Do you realize there is no Great Barrier Reef (eaten by star fish in the 60s), we are starving to death (Population Bomb Ehrlich), we have no oil left and are buried in horse manure. As for computer models predicting climate they are even sillier. My experience with computers is as a professional for 30 years. To reckon we can take a few scientists and programmers and accurately predict the future is just stupid. Perhaps I should say anyone who believes it is very gullible or ignorant of what computers can do. BTW the Hadley Centre says it tests its model by using it in daily forecasts. Working from that they say they can project for a 100 years. It seems inaccuracies in the daily forecast is some sort of proof!
    Unfortunately though the CSIRO report would have been a ministerial as a counter to the bad press AGW is getting. I expect the gullible and ignorant will be sucked in as usual. Must go now and shovel the horse manure away from the front door.

    00

  • #
    Raymond

    Ice won’t melt

    The US National Snow and Ice Data Center in 2007 warns the Arctic ice could vanish:

    The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice—ice that formed last autumn and winter. I’d say it’s even-odds whether the North Pole melts out (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/27/Ice-expected-tp-disappear-from-North-Pole/UPI-45191214620247/) [this year].

    The US National Snow and Ice Data Center in 2010 concedes the Arctic ice has grown:

    A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent (http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/10/inconvenient-truth-ice-cap-growing/), since 2007.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ice_wont_melt/

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “How do you propose to get those science administrators sacked when
    (a) they are appointed by politicians
    (b) those politician are the only people who could do the sacking,
    (c) those politicians are providing the income for those science administrators who deserve sacking, and
    (d) those politicians are providing the income for the insitutions that employ those who deserve sacking?”

    I never said it wasn’t a tough gig Richard. But we have to get it done. Because this is not a specific problem with climate science alone. This is a generic problem with the growth of unnecessary spending, and the distortion of ALL SCIENCE and ALL HUMAN ADVICE. And its not something we’ve ever been through before. Its on an whole new level then the unlimited democracy of Athens experienced.

    My formal training is economics. Let me tell you something straight. The Keynesian multiplier is a lie. The idea of “government” spending your way out of a recession is the opposite of whats needed and amounts to massive vandalisation. In fact if you are in a recession, not only do you want fiscal triage in government, you also want to get down on your knees and beg the people to not use their credit cards. Pay off their debts and save as much as they can until we all get through the crisis together. Now it is true that under current circumstances you need to have the combination of a massive injection of cash, via debt retirement, combined with establishing and increasing a reserve asset ratio for the banks. This allows you to hit any business spending target you are aiming at. And whilst its true that you desperately want to reduce government and consumer spending you need to boost business spending to get out of a recession in a healthy way.

    This may all seem irrelevant to the problem at hand. But bear with me I’m getting to it.

    It is also not the case that our trade deficits are normal. They reflect our crap monetary-tax system. Our neoclassicals have concluded and publicised the idea that us losing our manufacturing is a good thing. And to do with comparative advantage. In economic theory, comparative advantage implies exactly the opposite.

    Just before I lay on you the implications of all this I want to point out that I’m not for leaving any of the old guys in shit creek. Far from it. The slings and arrows of outrageous bad good luck are going to descend on us, and we need to make sure the old guys aren’t copping it. Something has to give, and its got to be public servants that take the heat.

    You see we are heading for destruction. There is no end to this loss of manufacturing capacity. They don’t want our haircuts, We cannot fit our interior decoration services into a container. None of our fractional reserve creditors are the least bit interested in buying up our landscape gardening services, compressing them, and taking them overseas when the ships leave, that have delivered our goods, bought on credit.

    Every dollar that we spend in house asset appreciation, or other useless investments, or indeed in government spending, is a dollar that is not being spent in business-to-business spending. In BUSINESS renovation. In the plowing back of retained earnings into the improvement of business effectiveness.

    So the situation is much more dire than you might assume. We are running our act into the ground on the basis of runaway government spending and the really bad advice we are receiving from our economists.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
    PUBLIC SECTOR PULL FACTORS DETERMINING THE NATURE OF THE PUBLIC MIND.

    Though government spending was tiny by todays standards in the 19th century it did determine the nature of the public mind in European countries. Putting aside the British for the moment, that most spending was in the military skewed the culture in that direction. So Gendarme getting around in uniform, bullying everyone outside of the aristocracy and pulling all the chicks would theoretically have been a big reality in continental life. The Brits jackbooted everyone else. But weren’t so bad domestically because they recruited most of their naval bully-boys from the lower classes and then sent them far away to conquer the world.

    My point is that the situation now seems hopeless. Because it is spending flows that determine the nature of the public mind. Now its our non-defense public sector that represent the skewed nature of the public mind. More than any other blog reflecting this ugly dysfunction, I would recommend Larvatus Prodeo. Because no outfit reflects the utter contempt for the ideas, sensibilities and views of the people who feed them and raise their kids then what Prodeo does.

    Our very survival rests on sacking lots of these people as a fait accompli. And not allowing them to get back in the public sector. We can afford tax exemptions of double what their redundancy would be, but with no inflation loading. Thus creating a constituency for hard money.

    I’m not thinking it was going to be EASY getting to the point where we can start sacking these people by the bushel. I’m only saying that if we cannot get to that point we are finished. And we will enjoy the fate that other civilisations who are on the way out will enjoy.

    “Therefore, in my opinion, we should constrain our considerations to methods for informing the general public of the facts of the distorted AGW promotional information.”

    No good. Its not going to work Richard. As Joanne has shown the world, we are staring down the barrel of a thousand to one spending flow differential. If we don’t get the idea of sackings and cutting off of funds, you will never get yourself in a fair fight the rest of your days.

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    I wrote:

    I would love to see Jo Nova using her knowledge and alluring communication skills in a newspaper column dedicated to the subject of Climate Change. [Sean]

    Val replied:

    Sean that’s an interesting idea and maybe with Jo’s permission you could suggest it to a newspaper; which one would you choose

    At the time I didn’t have in mind any specific newspaper. I still don’t. I think it would be better to petition several, even regional – if Jo would be conducive to that. And as you suggest, the petitioning needn’t be limited to the printed media. I think it would also be good to have many petitioners. This could be coordinated to a certain extent.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “I don’t see any discrepancy at all between what is reported here and what climate science is showing us.”

    Hey idiot? How about being quits with the Orwellian language? I don’t think thats too much to ask? CLIMATE SCIENCE shows us that extra-CO2 doesn’t have any strong warming or cooling effect one way or the other.

    So of course none of the data is going to contradict that reality. Don’t lie about what climate science says or does not say.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Baa Humbug:@35
    Thanks for the link to the butterfly report. I think the only common ground between that report, and the article I read was the words ‘common brown butterfly’
    Reading the report looks it like the main focus was on habitat fragmentation, and the climate change mentioned was the type of climate change that happens at different attitudes and latitudes.
    It certainly looks like David Karoly has picked up on the observation that they emerger earlier under warmer temperatures, and tried to spin it to fit AGW.
    I think this really is an excellent example of the way AGW taints good science, and undermines people’s faith in scientists as a whole.

    On another note did anyone catch Bill Clinton’s joke that ‘spring is Al Gore’s proof of global warming’.
    When a wily old political animal like Bill Clinton, sniffs the wind and starts to circle away from AGW you know it has the scent of failure about it.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “Every communist country so far has claimed to be democratic …..”

    A non-point tel. Thats just irrelevant. Communist countries can say anything at all and their testimony isn’t relevant to anything much at all.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Altitudes and latitudes

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    I wrote:

    I would love to see Jo Nova using her knowledge and alluring communication skills in a newspaper column dedicated to the subject of Climate Change. [Sean]

    Jo replied:

    [I'm all for it, any requests to newspapers to syndicate or commission would be most welcome. Third party endorsements are worth so much..:-) Thanks! --JN]

    Jo,

    I will assemble an endorsement over the week. I’ll e-mail and let you review it before I submit it anywhere. Thank you for your articles.

    Sean

    00

  • #
    totaldenier

    CSIRO and BOM must have known they were misleading the Australian public when they omitted the pre-1960 data and the recent record rainfalls from their analysis. After all, they are very intelligent scientists, and knew the full context of the material they were publishing.

    I suppose they could have thought it was a “modern industrial” analysis to coincide with the higher CO2 emissions since 1960. And of course they have rushed this into print with the data series ending in 2009 to conveniently avoid including the recent 100-year rainfall event in Queensland. I wonder how much of the east coast “brown deficit” in the 49 year analysis period was returned to average by that event? They must have been editing as the flood waters were rising!

    But it is either deliberately deceptive or alternatively, very poor science. And neither of those performances is acceptable at all from some of our leading scientific bodies.

    Either way, heads have got to roll in CSIRO and BOM. And lets include the Chief Scientist Dr Penny Sackert as well, as she is in favour of any scientific hypothesis just so long as it doesnt contradict her personal beliefs.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Graham Bird @ 56.

    I agree Graham with your economic overview and this is why it horrifies me what the UN idiots are trying to do in the name of AGW. What they were discussing in Bali at the end of Feb. shows how out of touch these guys from economic reality.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/02/25/bali-hoo-pushing-global-environmental-control/

    Note their ideas will only cost a mere trillion dollars a year !!!

    00

  • #
    Charlie Day

    response to Richard S Courtney:

    Really? And your evidence for that is?

    The world has been warming from the Little Ice Age (LIA) for ~300 years. I think we agree this is a result of a natural cycle. If CO2 were accentuating that warming then
    (1) rates of warming should be increasing in the successive warming phases
    and
    (2) rates of cooling should be reducing in the successive cooling phases.

    But those alterations to rates of global temperature change are not observed. Even Phil Jones admits that the rates of warming are the same for the two most recent warming periods; i.e.
    ~1910 to ~1940 and ~1970 to 1998.

    But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by 8% since 1990.

    Bit of a straw man as to what the effects of co2 actually translate to. It does not mean a constant steady stream of warming.

    co2 has only in the more recent decades been of any level to cause significant impact and that graph backs that up. Along with all the physical properties of co2, atmosphereic models, energy imbalance, atmospheric spectra ect.

    Co2 increases the heat retained in the atmosphere. Look at that graph, it clearly shows warming. The last cooling trend doesn’t cool as much, and then the warming is going into higher temperatures because is starting from not as cool a place.

    The fact there are still natural cycles does not mean there is no co2 enhancing effect. The clearest place to see that on the graph is the cooling after the middle warming trend, is really fairly flat. That graph shows warming in the time scale. Just look earlier where the rough average temp is, compared to the later half of the graph. If you can’t see that, then your head is in the sand.

    The other flaw is when you’re looking at the final trend, you’re assuming it’s not going to continue after 2009 when you decide to stick with you’re 0.16 degree trend. So that’s also flawed reasoning.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Sphaerica: #50
    March 23rd, 2010 at 2:56 am

    That is, the populated and fertile parts of the continent appear to be the target spots for reductions in rainfall, based on century-to-date trends,1960s to date trends (i.e. AGW period) and computer modeled future expectations, although there are some individual models that do give rainy, rosy predictions for Australia

    Don’t you just love the way “we’re doomed” alarmists read tea leaves?
    So this one reckons we can look at century old data and guess what will happen next century and backs it up with data from the AGW period (60′s) and reckons we can guess the future. See any problems with this?

    And those computer models, some predict doom, others predict a rosy picture? LMAO Which to believe which to believe, I dunno spherica, why don’t we just toss a coin lol
    I liked the way you downplayed the rosy models (“although there are some individual models”) lol Would it also be true to say “although there are some individual models that predict doom?”
    I just love the spin

    All these charts and graphs, all the powerful computer models, all the scientists, research grants, govt backing, media releases, meetings, conferences and the passing of 2 decades+ and we’re still waiting for the evidence that CO2 has-does-will cause catastrophic warming.

    Ayyea Leanardo, wenna yoo a gunna finnish ha?

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Oh boy, I can see a pasting coming for #65 (deservedly so)

    Brace yourself Charlie

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Charlie Day: #65
    March 23rd, 2010 at 11:44 am

    Look at that graph, it clearly shows warming. The last cooling trend doesn’t cool as much, and then the warming is going into higher temperatures because is starting from not as cool a place.

    I’ll kick it off, sort of like the warm-up man before the main event lol

    Charlie see that statement of yours? What would you expect when coming out of the Little Ice Age? Can you see how your statement can be very easily adjusted for coming out of a warming period? Say at the end of the MWP as the planet was going into the LIA. Heres an example…

    Look at that graph, it clearly shows COOLING. The last WARMING trend doesn’t WARM as much, and then the COOLING is going into LOWER temperatures because is starting from not as WARM a place.

    Nothing unusual, nothing unprecedented. It’s just climate doing what climate does. The only thing about climate that doesn’t change is the fact that climate changes on ALL TIME SCALES

    00

  • #
    Charlie Day

    Joanne Nova

    Charlie, thanks for your concern, yes I do recognize that the 100 year trend is the average of the change from 100 years ago spread over 10 decades. But I disagree that this is singularly a “rising trend” as you put it (meaning accelerating trend across the century).

    So the further back you go, when the plus or minus rainfall was not as significant the average for all the decades will be less. It’s why when you click through all the other maps the average gets higher the close to the present.

    In a word — No.
    Trend graphs are horribly suspect to the fallacy of “let’s cherry-pick the start and end points”. If I did a trend of Australian rainfall from the 1970’s to the 1980’s (see graph 3 for an idea) I’d be going from a high rainfall to a low one. The difference would be huge. It would be totally the opposite direction to the 1960 – 2009 graph (the 1960’s were lower in rainfall, the 70’s were the wettest.)

    There is so much variation in the anomalies, unless there is some well understood reason why the trend from 1960 – 2009 is more significant than any other trend we should go for the trend with the most information.

    The last graph (#4), viewed through the prism of the carbon-lens does look like carbon is causing a rising trend under the oscillations. But look at it through a numbers-lens. Fully half of all “man-made” CO2 has occurred since 1975, and the trend for 1975-2009 is no different to the other cycles that preceded it. Remember the scary scenario is supposed to be accelerating, but the warming of the 1800’s was at the same rate. No SUVs, no coal fired electricity power stations, no modern grid, only a quarter of the number of people, and the world was also warming at 0.16/decade.

    The simplest and most likely explanation is that we are warming from the little ice age on an oscillating 30 year cycle and we didn’t know exactly what caused the LIA, so we don’t know exactly why things are warming, but it’s part of a longer trend that began more than 200 years ago.

    Nah see you’re still coming at it wrong the wrong direction. Yes one decade can be anomalous for the general trend of more or less rainfall for a decade. That is why a decade along is too small a data point. How ever when you have an increasing trend, extending the data points to get an average back further before the trend really existed, tells you little about the trend.

    The trend from 1960-2009 is more significant because there has been the most variation. The trend from 1970-2009 is even more significant. It’d be more useful to have trends for 1900-1960 to better explain.

    The main point is, extending the data points out to before the trend was as strong of existed, tells you little about the trend.

    I understand your position, but I personally think you’re wrong.

    Look at it this way, if for half the century you have stable rainfall, and then the second half you have extreme variation. Averaging out the rainfall for the each decade tells you little about the trend in the second half of the decade. Where as if you just look at the period of significance, it tells you what the trend is. It’s the area of interest. It’s not cherry picking if it’s the area of interest. The area where the trend has been occurring.

    30 year oscillations not continuing is not part of the idea of global warming as far as I know. Natural variations will still happen, just around different points.
    All i’d say is, look at the 1940 – 1975 cooling trend. It is not the same as the previous cooling trend. It doesn’t cool as much. That’s what you should be looking at. Also it’s wrong to look at a trend up until the current day and then assume it won’t continue any further.

    Oscillation still occur and that graph shows warming over the period, not just oscillations.

    Now if you’re proposing the oscillations, are all osculating up, well then, it doesn’t explain away lack of the cooling oscillation, however that fits in with the enhanced greenhouse effect from co2. So unless there’s some explanation that trumps that, besides it appears like a trend on graphs.

    The whole co2, the exact effects on the climate, are not completely known, but some things are, co2s physical properties are known. It’s known to be trapping more heat, long wave radiation ect, that explains the lack of cooling in your oscillation trends, in conjunction with the time frame of the significant quantities of co2 to have such changes. There is a lot of sound science behind this stuff, even if the predictions are not 100% accurate.

    That graph how ever supports co2 warming effects, sorry to say.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Gday folks, back in the land of the living after TC Ului- power and phone back on this a.m. You don’t realise how dependent you are on electricity until you don’t have it for a few days! No damage but a huge clean up of trees and branches.

    Sphaerica, Charlie Day- if you base your way of life on model projections instead of seeing what is actually happening I pity you. The rainfall trends clearly show the most productive part of Australia the Murray Darling Basin, is wetter than it was. The problems are with over allocation. Except in SW of WA there is no trend of decreasing rainfall.

    BOM and CSIRO can’t include this year’s rainfall as it is an annual update. That will have to wait till next year. The spin will be interesting.
    Ken

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Baa Humbug:@65
    update:
    The only thing about climate that doesn’t change, is that every time there is a change in the climate. A small minority of people try and turn it their advantage. By trying to convince the majority population that it is their fault, and they must make sacrifices to remedy the situation.
    I sometimes wonder if there are people out there who recognised that we were due from a upward trend in temperatures back in the early 80′s, and decided to ride it for all it was worth.
    And their increased hysteria over the last decade, has been because they know they are running out of time. If they don’t get things like carbon trading in place very soon they won’t be able to claim credit for the cooling trend, when it becomes obvious to the general population.

    00

  • #
    Grant

    Charlie Day…

    Nah see you’re still coming at it wrong the wrong direction. Yes one decade can be anomalous for the general trend of more or less rainfall for a decade. That is why a decade along is too small a data point. How ever when you have an increasing trend, extending the data points to get an average back further before the trend really existed, tells you little about the trend.

    “Nah” sounds like my two year old.

    Take another careful look at the two diagrams. The first one shows significant deviation has occurred in the last 50 years. The second diagram shows that comparing 110 years ago with today, it would seem that the current rainfall patterns are very similar to what they were back then.

    See what the analysis shows. Over 110 years there has been some change. It looks like 50 years ago was much wetter, but 110 years ago it was about the same as it is today. The choice of start point is therefore critical, but if you consider that we are back where we were 110 years ago, you have to say, “What has changed?”. The answer in terms of rainfall is “Not a lot”. So the last 50 years is largely irrelevant (apart from it includes my lifetime in which case it’s pretty special, at least to me).

    If rainfall stats were available for some time way back 500 years ago or longer that showed the same comparison as 1900 vs 2009 then we would all have to conclude that rainfall fluctuates over time, some years are good, some are bad. 1960 was a cracker!

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Binny:
    March 23rd, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    Stop wondering Binny. These scientists (the cabal) have researched climate for years and have data at their fingertips, sure they know of the 30yr cycles and many other climate phenomena. Their brief, handed down by their bosses is to link emissions to warming and come up with convincing evidence.
    Their problem is, mother nature doesn’t recognise charts, graphs, anomalies or trends and she won’t play ball. Climate is what it is and no amount of data manipulation or baseline cherrypicking will change that.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I moved in to my current property 5 years ago. My neighbour has been there for over 60 years. He often tells me about the various floods (showing me the marks on the stone wall) and the harsh droughts (and the heartache of shooting his animals).

    If you want to know about past climate, don’t take the word of an office boy crunching numbers in front of a computer, go find an 80yr old farmer. HE HAS OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE. He doesn’t “trend” or “anomalise” anything. He tells you what it was, how it was.
    He won’t tell you what the temp was to within a tenth of a degree, but he will tell you NOTHING IS UNPRECEDENTED about the current climate.

    Maybe a smart PhD student should go around and collect the very many good records that exist at the long lived farms around Australia. This data will put the BoM to shame.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    There is a wealth of historical information out there from those who were not blinded by climate scares.

    Reports of Drought by our Ealy Settlers.

    The Brisbane Courier Friday 11 October 1889

    THE PREDICTED DROUGHT. Australian weather statistics 1782 – 1889.
    ” In order to throw some additional light on the above question, I will furnish a few condensed Australian weather statistics of the last 107 years, and if anyone can found a positive forecast on them he is welcome to do so ; all that I can see in them is the simple fact that floods and droughts alternate out here with “lucid intervals” of ordinary settled and moderately wet or dry weather.

    Captain Cook in 1770 says little about the weather. Dampier in 1690 or thereabouts was equally silent.
    Captain Matthew Flinders reports drought and bush fires from 1782 to 1792.
    There was a great drought in 1797 for 100 miles round where Melbourne now stands ; 1799 to 1806 were very wet years, and in 1806 the floods culminated by a rise of 101 ft. at Windsor, on the Hawkesbury River.
    The crops were destroyed, wheat rose to 80s. a bushel, and a famine prevailed.

    The excessive rain kept on till 1810, but 1811 cut it short, and was so dry that water was worth 8d. per bucketful in Sydney.
    This drought was sharp but short, and there was plenty of increasing rain for years afterwards, till in 1820 the Hunter River rose 37ft.

    Ten years now elapsed without any more floods, and it was so dry from 1826 to 1829 that water at last became worth 4d. a gallon in Sydney. 1830 saw the first flood for ten years.

    Ordinary weather followed till 1837, but 1838 and 1839 saw the champion drought of the century. Stock were all but exterminated. The Murrumbidgee is a great river, 150ft. wide, 60ft. deep, and overflows its banks, like the Nile, when the head snows melt, for five miles on each side to a depth of 3ft. This gives a volume of water equal to a river of 1450 ft. wide and 120 ft. deep, and besides this it fills a group of lakes each from seven to eighteen miles in diameter.
    Yet this great river dried up so thoroughly in 1839 that the fish died and putrefied at the bottom of it.

    I make no comments on what such a drought now would do to Queensland, and I am at present only going for dry facts and bald statistics.
    1841 broke up this drought with the champion flood of Queensland; the Bremer River rose 70ft., and the Brisbane bar not being then dredged, there was no quick “get away” for the water, and it filled the lower story of the commissariat stores here, and Ipswich was very short of rations for some days.

    Moderate rain carried the colony of Now South Wales (then the only one) on till 1849, when dry weather began and lasted till May, 1851.

    The scattered bush fires of Victoria got ” boxed” into one mighty whole on 6th February, 1851 (” Black Thursday “), before a southerly hurricane which sent smoke and leaves across Bass Straits.

    1852 brought a flood that swept Gundagai away and drowned the inhabitants ; 1853 saw great overflows of the Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, and Darling rivers, but not from local rain ; 1854 was dry; 1855 and 1856, ordinary weather; 1857 was a flood year, with three months ceaseless rain from February to May.
    Settled weather lasted till 1863, which, with 1864, both gave heavy flood. The weather settled again till 1873 (bar a small drought up North in 1866), which, with 1875, was very wet, and gave a flood each.

    Settled weather again carne, with a small local flood in 1879-80 ; 1882 very wet: 1883 to 1886 very dry; 1887 very wet; 1888 very dry; 1889 moderately wet.

    Here we have 107 years of statistics, and who can discern from them the rule that guides the weather ? A matter which enters so largely into our health and comfort, happiness and prosperity, that I hope to be excused for thus dwelling upon it. ……
    N. Bartley The Brisbane Courier 1889 ”
    Source: The Brisbane Courier Friday 11 October 1889

    And for those who are not blinded by the current scare, THIS WEBSITE has a wealth of observational information on droughts and flooding rains.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    The warmist tag team rolls on, todays short straw participant is Charlie Day. Welcome Charlie, may your stay be brief but informative.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Annual rainfall distribution over Australia in the period 1901 to 1999.

    The distribution of annual rainfall over Australia in the period 1901 to 1999, by decade.
    Areas coloured blue fall in the upper tercile (i.e. wet) for the decade concerned, while the brown areas fall in the lower tercile (dry).
    1901-19101911-1920
    – - 1901-1910– — — — — — — — — — — — 1911-1920
    1921-19301931-1940
    - – -1921-1930 — – — – — – — – — – — – — – - — -1931-1940
    Source and Images courtesy 1301.0 – Year Book Australia, 2001

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    There are more of the above charts at THIS SITE
    I didn’t post them all so as not to slow down the thread load time. The charts are very interesting and I don’t believe they have been contaminated with the AGW debate

    00

  • #
    Oxspit

    Grant@73

    Take another careful look at the two diagrams. The first one shows significant deviation has occurred in the last 50 years. The second diagram shows that comparing 110 years ago with today, it would seem that the current rainfall patterns are very similar to what they were back then.

    It shows no such thing. It shows that we see slighter trends over the 110 year period. The trends we do see are, however, in line with those seen over the 50 year period.

    Now take a closer look at the above supplied Temperature anomoly graph. There’s a supplied linear trend on this graph…. but does this linear trend really give an indication as to what is going on there?

    Put it this way. Suppose you were to remove all data from 1970 onwards – what trend would you see? I haven’t actually done the regression, but it looks pretty strongly to me that the trend would be flat. It would appear, actually, that the trend shown in this graph is DRIVEN by the inclusion of 1970+ data…. So what you are seeing is, in fact, completely CONSISTENT with that which is said in the ‘advertising’ document in question (such loaded language is truly unbecoming of a ‘science communicator’, incidentally).

    There is a great deal of fruitful and enlightening comment and discussion which might be had on this subject (what is actually being shown there, the time-scale of the data, how much can actually be said, etc.. ). Sadly, this does not appear to have been attempted.

    And it’s quite a curious claim that this is a case of ‘censorship’ (another quite unbecomingly loaded term for a science communicator). Firstly because censors rarely make public the things they don’t want you to see with obvious effort at making the interfaces accessible. But secondly, of course, because the ‘censored’ data seems actually completely consistent with what they are saying. Why did they not include it in their brief report? I would guess that this is because, as they state, this report represents a snapshot which, unlike various other pieces of writing on the subject, is not intended to confuse you.

    00

  • #
    Scott

    sorry oxspit

    but so many words so much bulls#$t.

    They made claims on partial information when the whole data set was available – that is lying by omission.

    Designed to push an agenda no other reason.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I’d like to introduce an Australian Treasure to our non-Aussie friends.
    Henry Lawson (1867-1922) A writer and poet. Almost always mused about life on this harsh land.

    “An’ half our bullicks perished when the drought was on the land,
    An’ the burnin’ heat that dazzles as it dances on the sand;
    When the sun-baked clay an’ gravel paves for miles the burnin’ creeks,
    An’ at ev’ry step yer travel there a rottin’ carcase reeks…”
    (from The Song of Old Joe Swallow, Henry Lawson).

    We hear terms like “unprecedented” often in this AGW debate.
    I sometimes think young scientists (trained by proffessors who grew up in the “green” 60′s and 70′s) have their heads buried too far in computers and models. They need to be told to raise their heads and study the history of this harsh continent. Knowledge of our past may put their current “data” in a better perspective.
    Bloggers like Spherica who says at #50

    But mostly it looks like, if climate change does happen as predicted, Australia is going to be among the greatest losers. In 100 years Australia may well become Antarctica’s little sister, by pretty much becoming a lonely, barren, desert continent:

    should take note.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Charlie Day:

    At #48 I wrote

    If CO2 were accentuating that warming then
    (1) rates of warming should be increasing in the successive warming phases
    and
    (2) rates of cooling should be reducing in the successive cooling phases.

    But those alterations to rates of global temperature change are not observed. Even Phil Jones admits that the rates of warming are the same for the two most recent warming periods; i.e.
    ~1910 to ~1940 and ~1970 to 1998.

    But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by 8% since 1990.

    At #65 you have replied.

    Bit of a straw man as to what the effects of co2 actually translate to. It does not mean a constant steady stream of warming.

    Say what!!?

    Who is putting up a straw man here?

    I respond to your point by discussing “successive warming phases” and “successive cooling phases” then you claim my response suggests “constant steady stream of warming”.

    We have had a steady stream of trolls here who make a series of logically disconnected posts in attempt to disrupt serious discussion here.

    At #48 I answered your first post (at #46) on the assumption that you were offering a genuine discussion. Your non-sequitur response at #65 demonstrates that my assumption was wrong and that you are merely another disruptive troll.

    I will have a reasoned discussion with anybody, but your response (stated above in this post) demonstrates that you are yet another disruptive troll. And you compound the demonstration in your post at #65 when, for example, you write

    The fact there are still natural cycles does not mean there is no co2 enhancing effect.

    True, but there is no need for anybody to prove “there is no co2 enhancing effect”, and there is a need for ‘warmers’ to prove there is such an effect of any significance. To date, there is no evidence of any kind – none, zilch, nada – that there is a “co2 enhancing effect”.

    Post here again when – and only when – you have some such evidence.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Otter

    Baa, that reads very much like it could be sung to ‘The Devil Went Down to Georgia.’

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Charlie Day:

    As an addendum, I point out that you provide more evidence that you are merely another disruptive troll when at #69 you write to Baa Humbug

    The trend from 1960-2009 is more significant because there has been the most variation. The trend from 1970-2009 is even more significant. It’d be more useful to have trends for 1900-1960 to better explain.

    That completely ignores my having written to you at #48 saying;

    But those alterations to rates of global temperature change are not observed. Even Phil Jones admits that the rates of warming are the same for the two most recent warming periods; i.e.
    ~1910 to ~1940 and ~1970 to 1998.

    60 year cycles of alternate 30-years of warming and cooling show no change. You talk about cherry-picking then utilise end dates of “1960-2009″ and “1970-2009″.

    Are you a disruptive troll?
    QED
    You are a disruptive troll.

    I commend everybody to ignore your posts.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Also, increases in rain over current grasslands might well produce more viable cropland to more than compensate for losses in current areas. You’d just have to rebuild all of your cities in entirely new locations.

    Very few people in cities grow their own food. Indeed the biggest loss to Australian fertile land has been the building of houses — vastly more significant than any climate change. If you wanted to optimise for best food production then the city should be built in the least fertile part of a country, Sydney should have been in the Blue Mountains.

    However, most people don’t care about food because relatively speaking food is cheap. The average household spends probably about 1/4 as much on food as they do on housing, or maybe less.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “The trend from 1960-2009 is more significant because there has been the most variation.”

    What? What do you mean by more significant? The CSIRO and the BOM have just tried to mislead the public by choosing that year. What can you possibly mean by “more significant”? Is it more significant because its the coldest and most wet year they could find ending in ZERO? Or is it more significant because it is the ten year period to choose that would make the pictures look more dire, except perhaps for the 70′s, and they didn’t want to be too obvious by saying “the last forty years”. Perhaps they thought if they said “the last fifty years” rather than “the last forty years” they could carry off the gyp?

    Do you have any evidence to support the global warming fraud. No you don’t. And neither does the CSIRO. In that light their behaviour here is disgraceful. They’ve cooked up a whole string of statements that are misleading while not being literal lies. There is no way that this approach was not carried out with premeditated malice.

    These statements are of a very particular nature. If we could have taped the culprits preparing for this, we would find them saying the most frightfully compromising things. There is no denying the specific type of statements made. Their strange nature. Each can be isolated, taken aside, and looked at on the basis that they are literally true and misleading; both at the same time. These type of statements don’t get there by co-incidence. They don’t come easily off the tongue or fingertips, in the normal course of speech of written explanation.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    I had a bit of a look at the Climate Wizard and in the “high emissions” A2 scenario most of Australia gets wetter. The Southeastern populated strip Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney, Hunter Valley, etc. all gets wetter, while Adelaide and Perth get dryer. All of the inland deserts and plains seem to get wetter (the vast majority of the landmass).

    Frankly that isn’t such a bad scenario for Australia, the areas losing water in this scenario are relatively wet coastal areas anyhow and the areas gaining water are the ones that need it most. Agriculture could span a much wider area under this scenario and it certainly would not prevent agriculture in the region around Perth and Adelaide. Many high food production countries would be perfectly happy with Perth or Adelaide’s rainfall.

    However, the CSIRO claims:

    Projections indicate that by 2030, southern Australia may receive up to 10 per cent less rainfall while northern areas see changes of -10 to +5 per cent.

    By 2050, southern areas may get up to 20 per cent less rainfall, with changes of -20 to +10 per cent in the north. Water security problems are projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia as a result of reduced rainfall and higher evaporation.

    The frequency and extent of droughts is projected to increase over most of southern Australia.

    http://www.csiro.au/resources/Climate-Change-Vulnerable–ci_pageNo-2.html

    They also recently claimed that dry areas would get drier and wet areas would get wetter. Neither of the CSIRO predictions match up with the Climate Wizard predictions so presumably they are reading the models differently.

    Personally I expect that in 50 years time we will see that any detectable trend is well within the bounds of natural variability, rainfall is erratic just like it always was, and agricultural outcomes are driven by technology and politics, not by climate change.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Graeme Bird: #56

    I have just caught up with your previous comment, Graeme, and couldn’t agree more.

    I am not an economist, but I do remember being told (on a company Directors course) that it is a cardinal sin to confuse money, with wealth. Money can be spent on acquiring end-user goods and services, but once money is spent, it is gone, you only have the residual value of what was acquired. Wealth is money spent on the means of creating more wealth.

    Focussing on money, makes you poorer, in the long run. Focussing on wealth creation make you richer, in the long run. This is why the wealthy are careful not to tell you how they got wealthy – they got wealthy by encouraging you to spend your money on the goods and services that they supply.

    But that model is starting to break down, as more people suss it out. So they now have to find a different way to coerce you to waste your money on mere goods and services. Encouraging governments to put extra taxes on goods and service in the name of carbon emissions is one way to do that.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Baa Humbug: #81

    Ah, so all those early Australian settlers got their just deserts, then?

    Sorry, I just couldn’t resist the temptation, to indulge in some dry humour.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Baa, great maps you posted. Did you notice how similar Jo’s (BOM) top map (1960-2009) to the map you posted (upper left 1901-1910)?

    After all this, I conclude that Australia was (is) the perfect place to get people all worked up (if you timed it right) because of a long history of drought areas and periods.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Rereke, good ones! :)

    Be careful though otherwise your humor will suffer from an adiabatic laugh fate.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Communist countries can say anything at all and their testimony isn’t relevant to anything much at all.

    Golly, I guess any country could say anything at all. Once people get in the habit of saying one thing and doing another, how do we even know which ones are Communist?

    So I’m asking for an empirically defined term which is the first step towards making any analysis, something that can reliably separate so call “Communist” countries from so called “Democratic” countries, based on real-world measurements not someone’s say so. Otherwise there is no answer to #28 above.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Tel:

    At #92 you ask the very good question:

    So I’m asking for an empirically defined term which is the first step towards making any analysis, something that can reliably separate so call “Communist” countries from so called “Democratic” countries, based on real-world measurements not someone’s say so. Otherwise there is no answer to #28 above.

    I do not know of any “empirically defined term” that has been universally agreed. And I think including “Democratic” is misleading because all countries vote in some way so claim to be “democratic” (although few are, probably only Switzerland is). Similarly, almost all countries except the USA claim to be “socialist”.

    I think the generally accepted definitions are these, but I am willing to be corrected.

    Communism
    A system where the State owns all the means of production.

    Socialism
    A system where the State owns the major means of production but individual Members, or groups of Members, of the State own the rest of the means of production.

    Capitalism
    A system where individual Members, or groups of Members, of the State own all the means of production.

    Facism
    A system where individual Members, or groups of Members, of the State own all the means of production but the State controls all the means of production.

    If these definitions are agreed then most countries are partially capitalist, partly socialist and partly facist. But almost all countries claim to be socialist while Americans say they abhor socialism and are Democratic (laugh).

    But so what? Why should each country not be allowed to be what it wants to be?

    Richard

    00

  • #
  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “Golly, I guess any country could say anything at all…..”

    Golly to you too. Yes they can. And it will usually be wrong.

    ” Once people get in the habit of saying one thing and doing another, how do we even know which ones are Communist?

    I guess when we have leftists everywhere like now it comes down to whether OUR LEFITSTS are running rampant outside the law. Like Allende then, and Like Barry Soetoro now. Our leadership is stupid. This is not an anti-labour deal. Labour had a great pool of talent when Hawke was running things. But Our leadership is stupid and malign. Not receptive to their taxpaying constituents. And care more for what like foreign parasites think then for what their local taxpayers think by contrast.

    But they are not operating ruthlessly outside the law and I think that makes a difference. This is not the entirety of the story. Its just that we can differentiate little between our various dysfunctional societies, when we all seem to carry out fascist policies, and speak in socialist argot.

    00

  • #
    Asperamanka

    About those butterflies …

    I can’t see any reason to doubt the data showing that butterflies are emerging earlier. The data collection goes back 65 years. I can’t believe that people recording the behaviour of butterflies 60 years ago were thinking “This is going to important next century, I’ll falsify the data” No, it’s more likely that the dates are correct.

    So what is causing the shift? It can be climate change.

    Increased urban lighting upsetting hormones naturally triggered by daylight? Increased background urban noise? Some chemical effect?

    This should be easy to test, easy to write up and would knock out another “global warming is real” paper.

    Who wants to be in it? I can offer some relevant expertise.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    The effect on butterflies could be realtime or it could be an inherited thing. If its an inherited adaption then there could be a delay to it. Perhaps we ought to trust this one. We don’t know all the evolutionary mechanisms. I suspect the prevailing view of evolution needs a little more nuance and sophistication. There was a lot of warming towards the end of last century. Who knows if the butterflies are just catching up or not? All such claims must have with them specific dates or they are just more hearsay.

    I think its good if the butterflies are hatching earlier, further North, further South or further up the mountains. This is a movement that has an aneurism should it think that somewhere in Siberia, little Yukos has seen his first butterfly. These people have no human feeling. They are the undead. Thats why this movement is so hard to kill.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Rereke Whaakaro @88
    you hit the nail on the head about money.
    What differentiates the haves, from the have-nots, is this.
    If you give the have-nots a certain amount of money they will focus on what they can buy with it.
    If you give the haves a certain amount of money they will focus on how they can use it to make more money.
    The amount of money people have to start with does not change this.
    I’ve seen people on huge salaries end up with nothing, and people on the minimum wage build wealth.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Tel I ought not make myself sound so antagonistic. I haven’t got much to say about the main thrust of your argument but just picked you up on one sentence. It is hard to separate our various forms of governance at the moment. Because the countries that were once European-dominated are all acting like loony-tunes in a pretty uniform way. A fellow like yourself ought try to see this as abhorrent and not just assume its some sort of new normalcy, or pretend that matters were always this way in some sort of absolutist sense.

    If we could go back in time to when Reagan and Thatcher were in power then settled definitions would make sense. There was some responsiveness and decency in both sides of politics in most modern Western countries in those days, but they all spent too much and had too many uppitty little regulations which made no sense as against just a few regulations that made perfect sense.

    The English kicked ass on every corner of the globe and would have fought people on the beaches rather than have their nation taken from them. There is now no such legal entity as ENGLAND to my knowledge. How was this achieved? Beats me. Ask someone who knows.

    My point is that we seem to be at another crossroads. Whereas Reagan, Thatcher, and the Pope before last, emerged to set things right, the last time we came to a serious point of decision, what they had to work with was a public sector that was deluded but really pretty honest when all is said and done. Really pretty righteous in their conduct. Well at least outside of the US.

    We now seem to be seeing a general debasement of public sector values. And it is the case that when there is monetary debasement, all values tend to be debased, and not just the monetary values.

    You ask a valuable question but one that is hard to answer right now. Because few of the public sectors and the political parties of the nations we would normally identify as being part of the democratic West are so much as living up to normal standards of behaviour. So it would be hard for me to merely repeat the definitions I’d sussed out as a teenager and for them to seem of any moment in the static sense.

    You look around the world and you might say “how can we differentiate” but you see that is a static picture. It may take in diversity of place but not diversity of time, and we are living through a particularly crap time.

    Like I said your question was valuable. And I keep on circling back to mass-sackings. And after all if I could sack only Dr Megan Clark, and her husband left her. Or God forbid she committed suicide. Or if she found she couldn’t get a pretty reasonable job in mid-management or even in a small laboratory, well how do you think I’m going to feel? I’m not going to feel good about it and I’m not into scape-goating anyone.

    I’m not going to feel real good. But if we sack many thousands of people, as any just God would have it, then we achieve more, to turn around this situation, that you seem to have worded as if it is a forever thing.

    We achieve more change with thousands of sackings then just with scapegoating some few people. And we create less stigma for those people.

    Supposing I’m running things on the basis of the Andrew Jackson “spoils system” and I decide to interview every economist in the country whose institution gets government funding. Even including high school teachers.

    I say to them ….. explain to me the Keynesian multiplier. Do you believe its a valid concept? Can you see any reason for fiscal stimulus specifically ON THE SPENDING SIDE where straight compassion is not the motive?

    So I don’t like the answers. Supposing I sack every last one of these people whom I’m not entirely happy with their answers.

    That means we are THIS MUCH closer to running a surplus. But it also means that none of these people carry a stigma. The public service will be made a great deal more healthy. But no one of these people will be totally humiliated and hopefully none of them will be too suicidal.

    There is no getting away from the fact that mass-sackings constitutes civilisational salvation.

    00

  • #
    Tony Hansen

    From the Age article linked in the head post
    ‘Bureau of Meteorology director Dr Greg Ayres told The Age the purpose of today’s snapshot was to remind Australians that the bureau had been collecting objective and observable climate information for a century’.

    And they choose only use post 1960 data!

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Graeme
    you could be describing the Chinese mandarins. The Chinese had a civilisation that could easily have ruled the whole world. But their bureaucratic mandarins stagnated it for centuries until eventually the rest of the world surpassed it.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Steve McIntyre post on UEA science panel.

    Back online from a short hiatus in blogging (see comment below.)

    It’s pretty discouraging that yet another inquiry is tainted by the selection of their panel. The University of East Anglia, seemingly emboldened by getting away with Geoffrey Boulton’s appointment to the ethics panel, have become much bolder in choosing the science panel.

    Chairman Oxburgh, a former oil company executive, is a green entrepeneur. Kerry Emanuel is a Michael Mann coauthor who blamed Climategate not on the scientists who composed the
    emails, but on an adverse ‘public relations campaign’ (MIT debate here)

    read the complete post here: http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/23/another-tainted-inquiry/#more-10559

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Interesting Binny. I didn’t think of that precedent. I see our guys destroying us rather than merely stagnating our act.

    00

  • #
    Oxspit

    Scott@80

    It is lying by omission to exclude data consistent with (indeed, in this case, supportive of) your claim? I suspect you may find this site of use:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

    You realise this was just a brief report, right?

    I agree that so many words being expended on pointing out fallacious reasoning a 1st year high-school maths student could be expected to spot is a little odd on a ‘science communication’ blog, but I hardly think that’s my fault. I mean, you seem to have continued to misunderstand even so.

    You may also find this site of use before I try again:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slope

    O.K. So. Imagine you were considering, say, deaths due to earthquakes over a 500 year period. Let’s say that for the first 490 years there are no deaths at all, then you have 10 quakes over the last decade resulting in 10,000 dead. I think it is a reasonable thing that one might assume that something significant occurred in those 10 years. Someone looking to put a positive spin on such ‘quake alarmism’, however, might truthfully point out that over a 500 year period we are only looking at an average of 20 deaths per year.

    NOW. Take another look at those two maps. Pick an area where a sharp increase/decrease in the 50 year map. Look at the other map and, for the most part, you see an increase/decrease there, only the trend is slighter. This is consistent, then, with stability followed by rapid change.

    Look, alls I’m saying is that providing evidence that someone is NOT lying to you is a curious way to make a case that they ARE lying to you.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Oxspit
    Look at the time series graphs for rainfall on the BOM site. Please tell us where (except for a steady decline in SW of WA) there is any “stability followed by rapid change.” No? Didn’t think so. Australian rainfall is characterised by great lack of stability.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    But so what? Why should each country not be allowed to be what it wants to be?

    Some countries (e.g. communists) tend to lock down the borders and keep to themselves and I don’t have a problem with that (although if they practice human rights abuses within those borders then you have to carefully think about your phrase “what it wants to be” when those wants do not reflect the larger population but merely a small party of elite who hold power).

    Other countries (e.g. the fascists) invariably go looking over their border thinking about borrowing a bit of your country. This is kind of difficult to ignore, and leads towards that whole “see who blinks first” situation.

    Liberty doesn’t make much practical sense if you are all on you own with your liberty — won’t be long before a group get together to take what you have. Liberty only works when a suitably large number of people are committed to the principle and willing to stand up for each other against aggressors. Part of that structured approach is a method for deciding when your fellow humans need your help from oppression and when they are better off left alone. It’s not a trivial call to make.

    00

  • #

    Incomplete storytelling about Australias rainfall and climate in general is not new. Here is something from 7 years ago in 2003 and it involves the same agencies as above.

    “Sucking Away Our Rain” (19 Sept 03)

    Australia’s public broadcaster, the ABC, presented a new scare story titled `Drought Vortex’ on their Catalyst science programme, using information from Dr David Jones of the Bureau of Meteorology, Dr James Risbey of Monash University, Melbourne, and Kevin Hennessy of the CSIRO Atmospheric Division.

    The story was basically that Australia may be subject to much less rainfall in future due to a cooling Antarctic `sucking away Australia’s rain’ into the Antarctic vortex. This was described as `a revolutionary new theory’ (yes, yes, another one) to explain how this was all to happen.

    Another new set of predictions (correction – `projections’) is nothing to be particularly concerned about, especially as these seem to change with each turn of the weather, more frequently even than theories about food nutrition. What was more significant about the story is the re-writing of past history that the `new revolutionary theory’ requires.

    Kevin Hennessy of the CSIRO said on camera – “What we’ve seen in the past 30 years or so is that many of these cold fronts have moved further south so fewer cold fronts are bringing rain to places like Perth, Melbourne and Hobart”

    That’s not what Hennessy was saying in 1999. According to a CSIRO statement on `Australian Rainfall Trends’, a study by Hennessy et al (Aust. Met. Mag. 48, 1-13,1999) claimed that `annual total rainfall has risen by about 15% in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria, and the Northern Territory, with little change in other states. The study also reported a significant 10% rise in the Australian-average number of raindays.

    Also, in a CSIRO press release dated 26 April 1999 titled “Don’t Forget your Umbrella: Australia has Become Wetter this Century”, Hennessy himself was quoted as saying “One of the most interesting findings from our study was an increase in Australian-average heavy rainfall”. He went on – “The heaviest daily rainfall event has become 8% more intense in summer with little change in the other seasons”. His 1999 press statement and the findings of his 1999 paper are inconsistent with his latest ABC statement about what has been happening in the `past 30 years or so’.

    back to the future.
    The above via John L Daly, still waiting for greenhouse.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Baa Humbug.

    Where do you get the time to find all these gems.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    I can’t find anywhere else to post this link but its relevant to climate alarmists and the issue of ‘peer review’
    link is
    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/censorship_at_agu_scientists_denied_the_right_of_reply/
    Tuesday, March 23, 2010
    just a lead in
    Censorship at AGU: scientists denied the right of reply
    By J. McLean, C.R. de Freitas, and R.M. Carter

    Has the Journal of Geophysical Research been coerced into defending the climate alarmist faith?

    Science is best progressed by open and free discussion in which all participants have equal rights of contribution. This is especially the case when a scientific issue is related to a matter of high public controversy – such as the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. (end of quote)

    I understand the issue and the report are controversial but it’s the principle that’s important; link to the paper for is at the site

    00

  • #

    Bob Malloy:
    March 27th, 2010 at 7:30 pm

    Baa Humbug.

    Where do you get the time to find all these gems.

    Bob my best investment in the last year was that of a 16gig USB Key. Full of goodies now and still filling up :)

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “It is lying by omission to exclude data consistent with (indeed, in this case, supportive of) your claim? I suspect you may find this site of use……”

    What the CSIRO and the BOM did was lying by ommission. No-one is interested in your feeble sophistry Ox-saliva. Are you claiming that this is NOT a dishonest, irresponsible and sackable offense? How so?

    In the end it might come down to standards. Your standards may be lower than mine just for one example. You might think that government parasitism is a good thing in and of itself. Whereas where I’m coming from, any not absolutely essential government department is on the nose in the first place. Since they exist on stolen money. Hence for these people to so brazenly and disgustingly set out to mislead the public is just doubling down on their inherent offensiveness.

    On top of that the CSIRO had a pretty good reputation. For leftists to hijack the brandname in this way, and to silence any authentic scientist in the organisation, is disgusting beyond belief. It smells like totalitarianism; the attitude that would inspire such behaviour.

    We need to find a quick phrase for those sort of lies where the statement is actually literally true. These are the sort of lies that have more pre-meditation than any other.

    “I did not have sexual relations with that woman …… Miss Lewinsky.”

    Might we call them Clinton-lies? Lawyer-lies? The sort of statements that the CSIRO boss has been making? Which woman is that Bill? The one you’ve been ogling at across the room? The fellow even had affairs with these sort of lies in mind. What do you mean by sexual relations Bill? What is the meaning of “is” Bill. Why are we talking about this in the first place and not your military technology transfers to the Chinese Bill?

    You see this sort of lying is of immense moment. Here we are doing all sorts of stupid things. Throwing money away on “carbon sequestration” for example. An inherently wasteful technology until such time as the laws of physics change. Apparently the CSIRO scientists have been silenced on this basic scientific reality as well.

    It is not helpful for leftist scum that have risen to the top of the CSIRO to lie to the public with malice and pre-meditation. I do not know why you take a contrary point of view. Perhaps you were not brought up right Ox-saliva? Maybe thats what your problem is.

    00

  • #
    Gary Cornwall

    There is a simple way to get the Truth out about AGW and that is to stop Voting in the Labor Party. This dries up the ever increasing Labor Government advertising money spent on the MEDIA and this Government advertising money is what drives MEDIA bias towards the Labor Party views. Simple.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    and who could say it better
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/page_2/5864012/dark-thoughts-on-earth-hour.thtml
    From the hills over Hobart’s Sandy Bay, the lights from at least one house will be blazing even more brightly than usual during Earth Hour on Saturday night.

    That would be the family home of emeritus professor Garth Paltridge, former chief research scientist of the CSIRO’s division of atmospheric research, visiting ANU research fellow, and fellow of the Australian Academy of Science.

    Paltridge, an Australian Enlightenment man to his bootstraps, will most likely be upstairs in his study, working on some new learned paper on climate change. He will also be plotting new ways to help arrest what he sees as the continuing sad decline of institutional science in Australia, under the pressures of the global warming ‘doomsday cult’ whose followers will be turning out their lights for the hour.

    This week I phoned Paltridge to hear what he had to say about the CSIRO’s new six-page publication, ‘The State of the Climate’, produced with the Bureau of Meteorology. This, of course, is the leaflet that has been seized upon eagerly by the warming alarmists at the ABC and elsewhere for some desperately-needed reassurance that all is not lost in the wake of the Climategate and IPCC scandals. To Paltridge, it’s just another sad indication of the decline in scientific objectivity. ‘This is a slipshod, slippery little document,’ he tells me. ‘It looks as if it’s been hastily thrown together by some committee. They don’t even tell you from what data they’ve drawn their conclusions.’

    He points to the assertion that Australian average temperatures ‘are projected’ to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 degrees by 2030. ‘Projected from what?’ he asks. ‘From their own past observations? Or from climate models? They don’t say.’

    read on at the link; you won’t be diappointed

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    a tip from WUWT Invariant
    A well written description of MWP in Greenland in Climate Through the Ages (1950) C E P Brooks. http://www.archive.org/download/climatethrouchth033039mbp/climatethrouchth033039mbp.pdf
    The supposed climatic changes in Greenland have been a matter of controversy for many years, but excavations, described by Hovgaard (10), appear to establish their existence beyond doubt. Icelanders settled in Greenland in the tenth century A.D., and two colonies were established, the Eastern Settlement, just west of Gape Farewell, and the Western Settlement, 1 70 miles up the west coast. The settlers brought with them cattle and sheep, which were successfully reared at first, and they even attempted to grow grain, but before very long the colonies became dependent on supplies from Norway.
    Norway itself was passing through a time of stress, however, and the visits of ships became fewer and fewer, until some time in the fifteenth century they ceased altogether, and the colonies were lost sight of. For many centuries their fate was unknown, but the history of the Eastern Settlement has now been made out by the excavations of a Danish archaeological expedition at Herjolfsnes, near Cape Farewell. The most important evidence is derived from the excavation of the churchyard, in soil which is now frozen solid throughout the year, but which, when the bodies were buried, must have thawed for a time in summer, because the coffins, shrouds, and even the bodies were penetrated by the roots of plants. At first the ground thawed to a considerable depth, for the early coffins were buried comparatively deeply. After a time these early remains were permanently frozen in, and later burials lie nearer and nearer to the surface. Wood became too precious to use for coffins, and the bodies were wrapped in shrouds and laid directly in the soil. Finally, at least five hundred years ago, the ground became permanently frozen, and has remained in that condition ever since, thus preserving the bodies. The remains show a gradual deterioration in the physique of the colonists ; their teeth specially are much worn, indicating that they lived mainly on hard and poorly nourishing vegetable food.
    The change of climate indicated by these facts is borne out by the evidence as to the ice conditions. When the colonies were first settled, there were traces of the former existence of the Eskimos, but none then lived so far south. The Eskimos follow the seals, which frequent the edge of the ice, and this indicates that in the tenth century the iceedge in Baffin Bay lay far to the north. In the thirteenth century the Eskimos reappeared and advanced persistently southward, until by the middle of the fourteenth century they had occupied the Western Settlement, which apparently they destroyed.
    The accounts of the early Norse voyages to Greenland are remarkably free from references to ice conditions, and, in fact, as O. Pettersson (n) points out, it is difficult to uaderstand how their protracted explorations could have been carried out if the ice conditions had been anything like those of the present day. Pettersson’s chart of the old Norse sailing routes shows a track direct from Iceland to the east coast of Greenland in latitude 66 N., then down the coast to Cape Farewell, and up the west coast. According to the documentary evidence which he adduces, this routeat present almost impossible was followed until about A.D. 1 200, when it was abandoned for a more southerly route.
    On the other hand, as early as A.D. 998 a shipwrecked party was ice-bound on the east coast of Greenland, probably near or north of Angmagsalik. It is to be noticed that the ship was wrecked on the coast and not on the ice.
    The early climatic history of Greenland, therefore, appears to have been somewhat as follows : When the country was colonised in the tenth century its climate was much more favourable than at present, for herds of sheep and cattle thrived. There was less ice than at present in the East Greenland Current, and it is even possible that at first there was no ice at all ; Baffin Bay seems to have been largely free of ice. But in the second half of this century the climate was already deteriorating, and about A.D. 1000 there came a foretaste of the coming ice. After this, conditions apparently improved slightly, and the colony appears to have prospered during oaost of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Towards the close of the twelfth century deterioration again set in, and the ice conditions rapidly became very bad. The summer thaw became shorter and shorter, and about A.D. 1400 the ground became permanently frozen. Communication with the mother-country was broken, life became too hard to bear, and the colonies finally perished.

    00

  • #
    Oxspit

    Ken_Stewart@105

    Look at the time series graphs for rainfall on the BOM site. Please tell us where (except for a steady decline in SW of WA) there is any “stability followed by rapid change.” No? Didn’t think so. Australian rainfall is characterised by great lack of stability.

    I did look at those graphs. I agree, the kind of change the CSIRO is talking about is not readily apparent on them…. just as you would not expect it to be. They are not claiming that rainfall uniformly increased or decreased across Australia all of a sudden, nor did they claim it did in any given state necessarily. State borders are an artificial boundary placed for political, rather than meteorologically significant, reasons. What they claimed is that rainfall patterns appear to have undergone a marked change. The map re-posted by JoNova illustrates the change, and the longer trend-map bears out their claims as per my previous post.

    00

  • #
    Oxspit

    Graeme, Graeme, Graeme… @

    What the CSIRO and the BOM did was lying by ommission. No-one is interested in your feeble sophistry Ox-saliva.

    What you call feeble sophistry, I call elementary mathematics.

    Are you claiming that this is NOT a dishonest, irresponsible and sackable offense? How so?

    Indeed I am claiming that. How so? In precisely the manner I detailed in my previous post. Did you actually read it? I feel I need to ask, because you don’t seem to have actually responded to it. How about you try actually responding to arguments people actually make rather than just hurling your mindless insults and walking off on tangential rants about Monica Lewinski and leftist scum. There’s a good chap. This is supposed to at least superficially APPEAR to be a science communication blog, after all.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Oxspit
    “They are not claiming that rainfall uniformly increased or decreased across Australia all of a sudden”
    No, but you did. You said- “stability followed by rapid change” . You’re changing your tack each time but you can’t squirm out of that one.
    Everyone here agrees that climate changes, rainfall patterns change, temperatures change. There is no stability in Australia’s rainfall, and there never has been. We will continue to get long droughts and flooding rains. In different places, at different times.
    By the way, if you think the recent drought was pretty bad, consider the findings from the coral cores on the Barrier Reef- from the mid 1760s to mid 1780s was extremely dry. It’s all happened before.

    00

  • #
    Oxspit

    Ken,

    ‘change’ and ‘uniform increase/decrease’ are two different things. If some places see increases and some places see decreases, then this is ‘change’, but not a ‘uniform increase/decrease’, for instance.

    There is no stability in Australia’s rainfall, and there never has been.

    In the sense that rainfall data is always going to look noisy, I suppose this is true, and nothing that has been said by either myself or the CSIRO report disputes that. Further, I’m sure there IS a fruitfull discussion to be had about how significant what we see above is etc.. and if you wish to engage in one, fair enough. Go ahead. But the post about which we speak is not such a discussion. It is an accusation that the CSIRO is engaging in active deception. The case it makes is worse than just weak. I believe I have pointed that out.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Oxspit, suit yourself, you’re the one twisting your own words, not me. The post is about the CSIRO omitting to mention the long term fluctuations in rainfall and temperature, thus giving a misleading impression about long term trends.
    I guess we should agree to disagree.

    00

  • #
    Oxspit

    What they said, Ken, is what the available rainfall data actually supports. I’m sorry you feel my insistence on interpreting sentences based the accepted meaning of the words in them is twisting words. Perhaps, in light of the fact that you have not actually found the inconsistency you seemed to be trying to pin on me, you should consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, your confusion is down to your own misunderstanding rather than someone actively trying to deceive you. Actual science can, after all, be complicated and the accurate communication of it difficult.

    Have a nice day.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Oxspit, may I suggest that even if it was not intentional, the fact is they could very easily add additional words to suggest that this is not at all unusual or unprecedented rainfall (or drought)?

    In other words, make it hard for a skeptic to point out something that “could” be misleading. If there is no hidden agenda then why not say that clearly?”

    00

  • #
    substanti8

    [snip... anonymous substanti-whatever - you can't throw insults at us without backing them up. So time for you to name and explain that evidence we deny, or apologize. All your posts on any topic will be held indefinitely until you are able to do one or the other. You need to convince us that you can reason and are worth listening too. - JN]

    00

  • #
    tps

    How, in general, does the sceptical view reach more people? I would love to see Jo Nova using her knowledge and alluring communication skills in a newspaper column dedicated to the subject of Climate Change. Jo would certainly be credentialed as a writer and she demonstrates way more erudition and investigative skills than do the columnists we see ringing the climate alarm bells. Given the prominence of Climate Change and the inundation of propaganda that one receives, a weekly column from the opposing side would hardly be too much. I believe it would sell newspapers.

    00

  • #