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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Six weeks ago Australian Met Bureau predicted a dry month for Townsville

Warwick Hughes (h/t Dave Brewer) points out that on Dec 20th the Australian Bureau of Meteorology predicted that the Townsville region had only a 1 in 3 chance of exceeding the average rainfall in January.

Australian Bureau of Meteorology, prediction, Jan 2019 rainfall.

Australian Bureau of Meteorology, prediction, Jan 2019 rainfall.

How that turned out one month later:

AUstralian Bureau of Meteorology, January rainfall, 2019. Map.

Australian Bureau of Meteorology, January rainfall, 2019.

Or graphed as the rainfall anomaly rather than as the percentage of the mean:

January, Rainfall, anomaly, 2019, Bureau of Meteorology, BOM.

….

Predicting rainfall in Australia is very difficult. The issue is not that the BoM gets it wrong — it’s that they pretend they can do it that matters. Why bother issuing one month forecasts?

Ten days out they were still hopelessly wrong

As Warwick Hughes notes they also predicted on Jan 17th that February in Townsville would only have a 45% chance of exceeding the average rainfall. The downpour started on Jan 27th.

Today, after one whole week in February, the area has already had over four times the normal rainfall for the whole month, but the BoM didn’t see that rain coming ten days in advance.

The fancy-pants detailed graphics are entirely misleading — like advertising that sells an ability the experts simply don’t have. We don’t want genius from our BoM, we just want honesty.

 REFERENCES

Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Townsville Aero, rainfall data, daily.

Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Current rainfall maps.

h/t Lank, Pat

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (102 votes cast)
Six weeks ago Australian Met Bureau predicted a dry month for Townsville, 9.6 out of 10 based on 102 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y7gcvegy

319 comments to Six weeks ago Australian Met Bureau predicted a dry month for Townsville

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Well …it could be worse… what if someon attempted to predict global temperature, based on incorrect models and trillions of dollars riding on it?

    Nah….couldnt happen…could it?

    No one is that stupid, surely?

    1012

    • #

      I’ve been observing the BOM forecasts for some time and they are lucky to forecast the weather one day in advance, let alone 100 years. Farmers in our township consider the BOM a joke.

      603

      • #

        BOM forecast -
        Dire storms, chance of Armageddon,
        delays expected.


        Though they can’t predict whether, six weeks out
        or even one week, when has that prevented yr Ehrlichs,
        Hansens’s, Viners et Big Al from predicting cat-
        asstrophe… thirty-years, fifty years, or even one
        hundred years from the date of each Earth-Day-Doomsday-
        prediction?

        Keeping the record out there.
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/22/failed-earth-day-predictions/

        291

        • #
          sophocles

          `The End of the World” has been predicted over 40 times. Last time I looked, about twenty years ago, the count was over 40.
          Where did Adams (of Hitchhiker’s Guide fame) get 42 from? It wasn’t because it was six times seven There has been a burst of many more over the last 120 years as more and more “End Times” predictions have appeared.

          I can’t be bothered counting them now that science and physics has gotten involved with the Solar micro nova idea. (There are a lot of underground `cities’ most of which date to about 12,000 years ago. Go figure.)

          The really interesting thing about these predictions forecasts projections ideas, now the IPCC is involved in the game, dragging in even more idiots, is that we have survived all of them …

          10

      • #
        ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

        Like I keep saying, they might as well try and predict weather using coloured swirls on a soap bubble as a proxy. Should we be amazed if that turns out more accurate?

        212

      • #
        Dennis

        It’s “errors and omissions”, of course.

        Apparently that’s what the BoM told the Minister when complaints were made to him regarding BoM media releases not matching historic records data.

        Prime Minister Abbott wanted the BoM subjected to due diligence, an independent audit, but we were told the majority in his Cabinet disagreed with him.

        They would have been the “LINO” people (Liberal In Name Only) led by the Minister for Communications at the time.

        I understand that LINO has been rolled up now and part of it has departed, other parts are awaiting departure and the better parts have moved to the other side.

        130

      • #

        If the weather was random with two choices (fine or rain) and BOM forecasts were random they would be 50% correct but there are more choices 1/ sunny & hot 2/ sunny with clouds 3/ overcast no rain 4/ some rain 5/ stormy which reduce the chance of being correct by random selection. However, the weather is more predictable due to seasons and location eg In Straun Tas it is said that it rains two days out of three, in dry areas in central Australia rain is uncommon In SE Qld (Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast) Jan, Feb and Mar are the wet months which have close to half the annual rainfall. Brisbane area had record rainfall in Dec 2010. It should have been an easy guess that Jan 2011 would have high rainfall causing floods from saturated catchments. Further, weather is not random, it occurs over periods of time. Just predicting that the weather is the same as the previous day with some input of seasons should be accurate to something like 75%. No super computer required for that. In most of Australia the weather comes from the west so for the Eastern Coast where most people live there is some days warning of coming changes. BOM falls down because they have a model which includes their ideas of global warming and CO2 emission. The model is rubbish. Their computer should be looking at past data, past cycles and real measured data (eg SOI, IOD, atm pressures across the country etc) with pattern recognition. CO2 has no affect on weather.

        70

        • #
          Serp

          I’m always complaining that the arithmetic is done in the dark but their including carbon dioxide as a factor in weather forecasting defies belief, it cannot be true.

          30

    • #
      PeterS

      Not only that the fallacy is still prevalent in both major parties. Stupid is as stupid does is so appropriate to Australia.

      302

    • #
      joseph

      It’s been the driest month so far this year if you don’t count January!

      432

    • #
      Latus Dextro

      Marineweather forecast in NZ is a fabulous ‘tool‘, in all senses of the word.
      It permits one to view the synoptic of the day, based on satellite image and then scroll forward into the future for 6 days, with two separate segments a day, AM/PM.

      It is abundantly clear that six days ahead is such an enormous punt that rarely if ever does it provide anything resembling an accurate forecast of either the synoptic evolution of fronts and pressure gradients, cloud and rainfall. But …. it unerringly demonstrates that deterministic modelling of weather or climate is plain silly or political, given that both are chaotic non-linaer stochastic systems. Unreliable at best and pointless at worst, such is settled politics.

      As a deep throat aside, most revealingly, Wikipedia does not list weather or climate as a stochastic process.

      The term stochastic is used in many different fields, particularly where stochastic or random processes are used to represent systems or phenomena that seem to change in a random way. Examples of such fields include the physical sciences such as biology,[7] chemistry,[8] ecology,[9] neuroscience,[10] and physics[11] as well as technology and engineering fields such as image processing, signal processing,[12] information theory,[13] computer science,[14] cryptography[15] and telecommunications.[16] It is also used in finance, due to seemingly random changes in financial markets.[17][18][19]

      It’s always what people don’t say that is so useful.

      190

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      In addition to writing all these wonderfully insightful comments here, why not also write to the minister responsible as well. As I understand it, at the moment, the responsible Minister is :

      The Hon Melissa Price MP
      Minister for the Environment
      Member for Durack, Western Australia
      Parliament House
      CANBERRA ACT 2600

      Email at:

      Melissa.Price.MP@aph.gov.au

      Or

      https://onlineservices.environment.gov.au/contact-your-minister/eform

      Give her a polite heads-up.

      I’m sure she’ll be so very appreciative of your concerns.

      140

      • #

        Might as well try and convince a life long Vegan to try some crispy bacon.

        50

      • #
        Wazza

        Already written to all ministers/members involved, asking some answers to why none of the dire projections for the last 30 years, have not occurred, yet we have outlaid billions to stop something that has not happened. The response, NOTHING, ZIP, NADA.

        80

    • #
      DaveR

      Undoubtedly there will be legal ramifications of having to open the Ross River Dam gates during the peak of the natural flood flow.

      It will be interesting to see whether legal argument goes down the line of the BOM is so focussed on global warming, it is not capable of delivering its core duties, such as forecasting a 100-year rainfall event 10 days out.

      Another line might be that because they have programmed a global warming element into their forecasting software, the 100-year rain event did not show up in the weather predictions.

      I think the BOM will strenuously try to avoid any court-based examination of the accuracy of their forecasts.

      00

  • #
    Geoff

    Wait a miniute. No rain for 6 weeks, then a deluge in one day. So the BoM was 97.62% correct. Better than Climate Change scientific agreement. No doubt there is a government gazette that states this as fact.

    There is a 99.999% chance that part of a comet will NOT hit the Earth. Don’t ask any geologists. They are Comets Always Miss Deniers.

    168

  • #
    AndyG55

    Missed by “that” much !;-)

    123

    • #
      Destroyer D69

      Remember cyclone ADA ? The one that nearly wiped the Whitsundays and Proserpine/Cannonvale from the map? The forecast for that issued at the Mackay airport the evening before was for “small tropical cyclone Ada” Oops guys, they dont appear to have upped the game since then.

      251

      • #
        Chris in Hervey Bay

        I remember it well,
        Annette Alison doing the Channel 7 Weather, relayed from Brisbane, on the news the night before Ada hit. I can’t remember her exact words but she suggested Ada was only small and was nothing to worry about !
        Wiped us out !

        Duh !

        50

    • #
      Another Ian

      Andy

      Around modelling

      “Correct within an order of magnitude” = wrong

      122

  • #
    TdeF

    The story will be that the weather is highly variable but that the Climate is predictable. Sure. What about those 1 in 100 years events then? When are they due? The 1 in 20 year events?

    That is the fallacy of constant climate. Dorothea McKellar wrote a “land of droughts and flooding rains” as her description of the climate. The BOM would have us believe that this is not true, that everything in moderation and that any unusual events are Climate Change.

    No, they are the climate. It includes droughts. It includes flooding rains. It includes on in ten year events, long droughts, short droughts, sudden torrential rain and periods, many tropical storms and few and years where nothing much happens.

    If the vaunted Climate models should tell us anything its that one in a hundred year events happen once in a hundred years but not regularly. They are not climate change. They are the climate

    And bushfires are due to fuel load, are natural and putting them out without burning back just makes the next one worse until you get unstoppable fires.

    We the people would like the truth, not UN and IPCC fantasies of Climate Change caused wholly by man released CO2. As for ab*riginal climate forecasting pushed by the BOM as virtue signaling, which particular tribe even knew the shape of Australia or that it was an island or even how evaporation worked? Socialist fantasies presented as science fact. We deserve real science, rational science and science includes natural variation, droughts and flooding rains.

    492

    • #
      TdeF

      Then perhaps in the long droughts between floods, we could upgrade our cheap but dangerous earthenworks dams so that we did not face catastrophic collapse as in Wivenhoe and Townsville. We nearly lost all of Brisbane in an area where a dam can fill in a night. Once an earthenworks dam overflows, the dam collapses. Not a real concrete dam. If they can fill to 194%, that should be safe, not risk the entire town.

      Dams should be flood mitigation and long term storage and there should be more of them, weirs and diversions. It is not cruel to imprison water and perhaps millions of fish would not be rotting in the drinking water in the Darling now if the endless government committees had the courage to do what was done in the Murray half a century ago. 26 locks and spillways, built from 1922 to 1939.

      333

      • #
        TdeF

        The only thing which saved the entire of Brisbane was that the oversight committee had decided to put in blow out plugs. While politicians tried to save the water and engineers dithered and everyone risked total devastation, the plugs blew and saved Brisbane. Otherwise three Sydney Harbours would have crashed down the Brisbane valley at high speed in a wall of water filling the valley, destroying most of Brisbane in the greatest man made disaster in human history. Tim Flannery would have been responsible with his prediction that even the rains that fall will not fill the dams. He should stick to identifying kangaroos and stay out of engineering and hydrology and meteorology in which he has no qualifications at all.

        442

        • #
          Robdel

          The bom staff surely have qualifications . Much good it does.

          140

          • #
            TdeF

            Like the IPCC, the reports are pure politics and I would guess dominated by a number of career activists who realise the fast career path is Climate Change. Just like the CSIRO. How amazed must they have been that the Federal Government did not choose a single meteorologist for their Climate Council? All Green activists.

            It was only two years ago when the Climate publicist for Queensland was involved in a storm being upgraded to a Category 5 classification, only have it fizzle out. Mass evacuations at what cost? Oops is not good enough. With the CSIRO, BOM and ABC/SBS we pay billions for facts, not personal political opinions or groupthink. Or we will get all our science and weather forecasts and even our own news from overseas unfiltered and unaltered by political activists.

            341

        • #
          Greebo

          I once lived in Somerset Dam, a little hamlet below the gated dam wall that spans the Stanley River, a major tributary to the Brisbane River. Our house faced the river, and was the one nearest the wall at that level. It was a peaceful place. The Stanley was a river you could cross in a couple of steps. When we first arrived Lake Somerset was around half full. The recreational area known as The Spit extended out to about one third of the width of the lake. I was new to Queensland, and so was unprepared. One night, Maleny and its area got 11 inches (280mm) of rain in eight hours. Somerset Dam ( the wall itself ) turned from this somewhat imposing but benign structure into a raging monster. Any attempt to cross the Stanley near our house would have been fatal. The noise was incredible and the power of the dam was palpable.

          1985. Wivenhoe was under construction, but all work there was suspended. The locals had all been expecting this event. They all said it was an eleven year cycle, and Brisbane flooded in 1974. There was a marker on a light pole somewhere near Brekky Creek showing the height of the floodwaters in ’74. Not quite as high as 1893, I believe, but Somerset Dam was not built then.

          40

      • #
        TdeF

        By the way, the reason an earthenworks dam can fill to 200% is that the extra double volume is to prevent disastrous overflow, a safety margin. Both Wivenhoe and Townsville dams were over 190% when the gates opened. The worry then is that in the middle of a massive downpour, the water cannot get out fast enough and the dam overflows. There was even a law in Queensland that Wivenhoe had a statutory limit well below 190% full. This is not driven by engineers, but by climate change fantasists who threaten to destroy vast numbers of lives and property because of their Green faith. We had sensible people in the 1920s who saw water as a resource which had to be managed especially in an arid landscape. Now we have $100Bn in non working desalination plants, at least that’s what they will cost by the time we pay them off on the never ever.

        331

        • #
          Greebo

          Now we have $100Bn in non working desalination plants, at least that’s what they will cost by the time we pay them off on the never ever.

          And rivers like the Mitchell locked up in Nat Parks.

          40

      • #
        AndyG55

        Dams should be flood mitigation and OR long term storage.

        There were actually TWO dams planned for the region, Wolffdene and Wivenhoe.

        IIRC, Wolffdene was to be the storage dam, allowing Wivenhoe to be emptied much earlier in the case of a major flood event

        The Greens/Labor killed that idea, as they killed the Traveston Dam a few years later.

        222

        • #
          Peter C

          We have a flood mitigation dam at Highton (Geelong). It is there because houses were built in a channel from the Barrabool hills to the Barwon River. They got flooded! Flash Flood caused by a local thunderstorm. It was quite a while ago. Maybe late 1970,s. There has been no flood event since then so the effectiveness of the dam has not been tested.

          I have no idea if purchasers of those houses in the mean time have driven 500m up the road and looked at the dam. I doubt it somehow.

          It could still fill up, and overflow. It is always empty so there is no issue about letting water out. It has no flood gates. I suppose that it has a spillway. So if it fills up it over flows.

          If a dam is dual purpose; Storage and Flood mitigation, shouldn’t they just let it fill up and then overflow, when it gets full? The spillway should protect the dam wall.

          70

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Storage and Flood mitigation, shouldn’t they just let it fill up and then overflow, when it gets full? The spillway should protect the dam wall.”

            A storage dam works best when it can be kept full

            A flood mitigation dam works best when it is empty at the start of the flood.

            See the conflict.

            If you empty it when you think a storm is coming, and it doesn’t rain, eggy face !!

            Conversely, if you keep it full, and a big storm comes, you have no effect on reducing the storm flow.

            Things get even worse if you leave it too late and have to try to release extra water as well as the storm flood to try an prevent even worse flooding.

            140

            • #
              TdeF

              And if you can’t release the water fast enough, absolute man made devastation. Even Wivenhoe had the reserve of 100% because that dam can fill in a night. What if it is already 192% full? No hope.

              110

              • #
                AndyG55

                Actually, TdeF, I think you will find that those values are ABOVE the normal holding capacity..

                ie 100% is twice the normal holding capacity,

                192% is nearly THREE times the normal holding capacity

                42

              • #
                TdeF

                No, 100% is the capacity, as usual. After all, what dam has a capacity of 200%?
                The extra 100% is the emergency to ensure it does not overflow. This is usually very shallow and covers a much larger area so the dam usually does not have to be a lot taller. The entire concern is overflow. This threatened the Oroville dam California last year and a great drama as they tried to stop leakage which could collapse a major dam. Hundreds of thousands of people were evacuated.

                Same story, long drought followed by torrential rain.

                100

              • #
                AndyG55

                Pretty sure Wivenhoe has a flood capacity 3 times its normal holding capacity.

                Will have to check.

                30

              • #
                Greebo

                Trying to reply to Andy. Wivenhoe has a storage capacity of 3.132 million megalitres, and hold back a further 1.967 million magalitres above its normal storage capacity. Source seqwater.

                10

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Peter C:

            1978 see my comment 3.1.1 in previous Post.

            10

        • #
          Bushkid

          On the matter of Traveston Dam, it was a poorly thought out exercise – far too shallow to be effective, too high a rate of evaporation, and it would have flooded highly productive land in the Mary Valley.

          We need water storage dams, to be sure, but they have to be practical, and not drown productive country. We have little enough really good country in Australia, it’s best to look after it, not drown it under shallow lakes that won’t be able to do the job intended.

          90

          • #
            Dennis

            The Traveston Dam project was an election gimmick by Labor in Queensland and they cynically acquired privately owned farm land knowing the project would not proceed.

            10

      • #
        Dennis

        Before the unofficial two-party system of government decided that man made global warming caused by carbon dioxide was a problem to be solved by reducing emissions after the IPCC Kyoto Conference and later signed Agreement there were plans for new dams.

        The Coalition in opposition had a new plan for dam construction all around Australia including in Northern Australia where the Old River Irrigation Area (Kununurra Western Australia) would be extended into the Northern Territory and Northern Queensland. When the Abbott led Coalition Government took office in September 2013 in cooperation with the Queensland Newman led Coalition Government the earlier Labor Government’s no development “wild rivers legislation” was repealed to allow dams to be constructed.

        However, in September 2015 PM Abbott was replaced by PM Turnbull and he has always opposed dam construction ever since he was Minister for Water Resources in the Howard Coalition Government that lost power in November 2007. That federal government signed but did not ratify the Kyoto Agreement. Turnbull was a strong supporter of desalination plants and believed that Australians were paying too little for water (and for electricity). We now know that he has always been a Liberal In Name Only and very supportive of his Greens friends and Labor friends. He even considered becoming a Labor MP before he decided that his home electorate of Wentworth was strategically a better place for his political purposes. And more easily won than a Labor seat because of his position as a lawyer and wealthy businessman.

        And now out of Parliament Mr.Turnbull is supporting candidates masquerading as Independent standing against all of the Liberal MPs who did not support him. There is much to this story but not for now.

        90

        • #
          Serp

          A pathologically ambitious character hell bent on a campaign of spite against his betrayers first and then anyone lame enough to disagree with his vision of personal aggrandisement; what’s not to like about the Beloved Windbag?

          20

    • #
      Kneel

      “… one in a hundred year events happen once in a hundred years but not regularly.”

      A common misconception, actually.

      Wikipedia correctly says:

      “A one-hundred-year flood is a flood event that has a 1% probability of occurring in any given year.”

      For a stochastic system with “memory” (ie, signal shows “pink” noise) like rainfall (or temperature, for that matter), any particular decade may have a significantly larger risk than others, and easily produce 2 or 3 such events. This is actually normal and expected if one considers the stats and data we have.

      71

      • #
        AndyG55

        ““A one-hundred-year flood is a flood event that has a 1% probability of occurring in any given year”

        As I mentioned before. That gives about an 18% chance of a major flood within 20 years.

        Doesn’t sound like a “desirable” probability for somewhere to live, does it.

        61

      • #
        sophocles

        … which is fun to play with incorrectly :-)

        10

    • #
      Dennis

      It is ignored that the land we call Australia was experiencing changing climate long before the Industrial Revolution began, around 130,000 years ago there was another change in the climate and with much drier conditions the rainforests retreated and cover much smaller areas to be replaced by what we have today, vegetation that needs fire for the seeds to germinate.

      The Australian Aborigines obviously observed this and created their own traditional seasonal burning to improve their own living and hunting conditions, and to encourage native grasses to grow to attract animals to the many tribal areas (at least 250) and they collected seeds from the grasses to grind into a flour.

      The latest information points to the Aborigines living here from around 65,000 years ago based on recent excavation of caves in Kakadu National Park Norther Territory. Before the discovery of stone tools and other finds beneath the layers of material on the floor of the caves skeleton remains discovered at Mungo Lake southern New South Wales near the Victorian Border (Mildura), “Mungo Man” indicated 40-50,000 years.

      30

  • #
    pat

    posted on jo’s previous thread:

    7 Feb: news.com.au: Townsville floods: Weather bureau’s forecasts slammed
    The Bureau of Meteorology has been slammed for “woeful” forecasts during Townsville’s horrific flood event, while the Queensland Premier warns “it’s a big journey back” as the massive clean-up begins.
    by Domanii Cameron & Nicole Pierre, Courier Mail
    Member for Burdekin Dale Last told The Courier-Mail he thought the accuracy of some of the forecasts was “way off”, after BOM predicted heavy rain for his home at Alligator Creek for Monday.
    However he received “bugger all”.
    “Monday we were supposed to get heaps of rain (at Alligator Creek), that was the prediction,” he said.
    “There’s a fair bit of flack hitting the bureau.”…

    A Federal Government spokesman defended the bureau’s work, and said it had received resounding praise from all levels of government.
    “Monsoonal systems such as this one are unpredictable and difficult to forecast, but BOM is proud of the efforts of its meteorologists, hydrologists and many other staff who have worked around the clock to keep Australians safe,” he said.

    Mayor Jenny Hill said there were local BOM forecasters who had been affected by the floods.
    “Look, BOM have given us the best that they can,” she said.
    “You can always look back with hindsight and think maybe we should have done these things better.
    “We will do a lessons learnt out of that and hopefully then we will implement improvements based out of that lessons learnt.”…
    Originally published as Weather bureau’s warnings ‘way off’
    https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/townsville-floods-weather-bureaus-forecasts-slammed/news-story/c07004934adcbbbe4b0b02dc8293d3ff

    50

    • #
      el gordo

      “Monsoonal systems such as this one are unpredictable and difficult to forecast ….’

      A blocking high in the Tasman during summer should have received consideration, but the boffins wilfully refuse to confront reality.

      152

    • #
      NuThink

      “You can always look back with hindsight and think maybe we should have done these things better.
      “We will do a lessons learnt out of that and hopefully then we will implement improvements based out of that lessons learnt.”…

      I have experienced the same in trying to guess the lotto numbers. Still have not guessed the correct numbers, but will keep trying. Only one or two guess correctly each week (not every week though) but the problem it is not known before hand who will guess the correct numbers.

      30

      • #
        Serp

        I stopped picking my own numbers too long ago to remember and went for the quick pick which returns about thirty-five cents in the dollar which, curiously enough, is pretty much the same as the Melbourne bureau’s success rate of one day in three.

        Of course the betting pool loses over a third to commission and so forth so Quick Pick is better than the BOM’s success rate or is there a commission the weather system exacts from the Bureau’s bids? Oh, the carbon dioxide…

        20

  • #
    Lance

    /Sarc On

    Oh, the Irony of it all. 10 days out, BoM sees nothing of import.

    The “Believers” love their 97% Consensus. So let us run with that.

    Based on a 10 day window, and 100 years being 36,500 days, 10 / 36500 = 0.00274 , roughly .003.

    As a Percentage, there is now proof that 100 x ( 1-0.003) = 99.7 chance that the BoM has Zero Idea of what will actually happen in 100 years.

    If we are to believe that a 97% consensus is a suitable basis for far reaching energy policy and economic decisions, then it must be believed that a provable window of certainty is represented by actual facts on record.

    According to Cook et al, there’s a 97% certainty that global warming is provably real according to an opinion poll.

    Measurable, Provable, Facts show that there’s a 99.7% certainty that the blighters have no idea at all what is going to happen 100 years from now.

    So, who are you going to believe? An opinion poll or your own lying eyes with facts in evidence.

    /Sarc Off

    260

    • #
      NuThink

      It is easy to predict far in advance.
      Choose any day, say Monday two weeks hence or one hundred years in the future.
      It will be hot or cold, dry or rainy, overcast or clear skies, the wind may blow a gale or a gentle breeze or no wind at all. Humidity may be high or low. Hail or snow may fall.
      Get the idea? There are many other possibilities so the prediction may be partially right – but that is good enough for some.
      PS this type of prediction will cater for any place in the world.

      30

  • #
    Bill In Oz

    Good Jo ! reposted this also !

    80

  • #
    J.H.

    We won’t see this on the ABC though. Doesn’t fit their narrative of an infallible BOM.

    122

    • #
      Yonniestone

      I’m listening to ABC TalkBack now and the Townsville floods is the subject, listening to the experts giving information and thoughts on this there is NOTHING of the historical facts Jo has given over the past three threads just a thinly veiled Climate Change narrative that is totally void of any scientific rigour.

      These people are a disgrace to their fields and country.

      110

      • #
        C. Paul Barreira

        With the exception of a few individuals Australia has no intellectual life worthy of the name; the cultural cringe of progressives and collectivists is overwhelming.

        70

  • #
    ZombieDawg

    BOM = Bureau Of Miscalculation

    162

  • #
    New Chum

    And another disaster on the way.

    NASA extreme low sunspot counts indicate global cooling onset
    February 6, 2019
    Get ready for the big freeze.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/nasa_extreme_low_sunspot_counts_indicate_global_cooling_onset.html

    171

  • #
    pat

    it’s almost impossible to find video/audio from Sky News. however, this exchange between Andrew Bolt and Sky’s Charlotte Mortlock in Townsville needs to be heard.

    only found audio and it’s not easy to navigate. the audio is also dated incorrectly as “5th January 2019″ instead of “5th February 2019″.
    it’s the second audio from the top of the list:

    23min25sec segment on Townsville floods begins.

    very rough paraphrase:

    27min05sec to 29min20sec:
    Andrew Bolt: it’s probably too soon to talk about these things, have you heard any discussion about more should be done about flood management? reference to Wivenhoe a few years ago. was the Ross River Dam left too full too long to be of use in dealing with all that water?

    Charlotte Mortlock, Sky: tone has changed today as to who is responsible. first and foremost, mmother nature. questions being asked about some drains not being cleared for years, despite complaints to council. a pump across the road worth around $3million that wasn’t working that was supposed to move water out of their area. but, like you said, it’s too early to talk about such things. investigations do need to happen.

    AUDIO: 46mins: Sky News: Bolt Report: Tuesday 5th February 2019 (wrongly listed as Tuesday 5th January)
    http://more.skynews.com.au/podcasts/the-bolt-report-podcast/

    90

  • #
    el gordo

    Climate is changing and BoM is unaware of how to forecast with any certainty, because its not in the script.

    ‘The latest the monsoon trough has ever arrived was January 25th in 1973, making this year one of the latest monsoon onsets on record.’

    Elders/ Jan 2019

    102

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    It shows that the met bureau is incapable of predicting diddly-do-daas with their warmist mentality. Especially monsoon related events.

    101

    • #
      TdeF

      Yes, we hardly need to pay so much for reports that summer is hot, winter is cold and averages will persist and rare events will occur rarely.

      I would guess that much if not all of the data collection is now fully automatic, as is the analysis.

      Much comes from overseas owned satellites anyway. The average person can see the weather across Australia instantly. More than was every possible with thermometers in railway stations and schools and Stevenson Screens.

      So what do 1600 meteorologists spending $300 million a year actually do?

      As much as the ABC reporters perhaps? Or Fairfax. It’s easier to make up the news than to actually report it fairly and without bias. The same could be said for the CSIRO and BOM. As for the CSIRO international conference on ‘ocean acidification’ when all the world oceans are basic, words fail.

      These are no longer responsible and apolitical organizations, even if the bulk of the people who work there are responsible and hard working. We do not need a Green swamp, much less pay for one. That was always a condition of employment. Fix it or sell the lot.

      292

      • #
        TdeF

        There was a time it was just the weather. A freezing day was a freezing day. A stinking hot day was a stinking hot day, not the end of the world.
        I guess that was before the weather was the biggest single money earner in the world and we are all going to die and life on earth will end unless
        we surrender to the UN/EU and the Merchant banks.

        242

      • #
        AndyG55

        The slightly warm January was purely a weather event.

        Interesting to look at the temperature of the seas around Australia during January.

        73

      • #
        Serp

        Incredulous, I did a search which returned a University of Tasmania news item including:

        “Assoc Prof Hurd said ocean acidification was a global problem causing measurable changes in the chemistry of the oceans.

        “She said atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2­) levels are rising as a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, and are increasing the acidity of seawater.”

        Yes, the quote really says “the acidity of seawater” and yes, the CSIRO’s Dr Andrew Lenton is a participant in this outright falsehood. So yes, TdeF is right again…

        A population so gullible that it allows itself to be charged twice for renewable-generated electricity and told to believe that it puts downward pressure on prices deserves to be told also that alkaline seawater is actually acidic; one despairs that anything can ever arouse Australia from its complacency –with any luck Bill Shorten will outdo Macron’s arrogance and bring it on.

        232

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Fitzy also believes that sea water can be both acidic and alkaline at the same time , they used to teach this stuff in primary school .

          73

        • #
          theRealUniverse

          “Assoc Prof Hurd said ocean acidification was a global problem causing measurable changes in the chemistry of the oceans.

          “She said atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2­) levels are rising as a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, and are increasing the acidity of seawater.”

          Total bunkum and provable bunkum. She must be the recipient of rather large research grants to say that.

          Seawater isnt acidic.
          CO2 levels follow natural increases.

          30

          • #
            theRealUniverse

            To add since >98% CO2 IS dissolved in the SEA how do you explain THAT Hurd!! So therefore an extra <4% (over estimate) of some so called human CO2 can acidify the oceans!!

            10

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      theRealUniverse:

      It’s 10 years ago that Jack Eddy died. His paper in Nature in 1976 can be ignored as happening before computer simulations.

      Jack Eddy, who died on June 10, 2008 aged 78, was a solar astronomer best known for his demonstration that irregular variations in solar surface activity were associated with major shifts in the earth’s climate.
      He was the man who named the Maunder Minimum. Based on reports of little or no sun spots for those years.

      160

    • #
      DaveR

      The BOM always seem to be a bit puzzled with the low-grade cyclone that caused the Townsville downpour. They categorised it correctly when it first formed in the eastern Gulf of Carpentaria and moved south, but once it moved over land near Normanton they got it wrong. It then “weakened” and moved around a bit but became stationary north of Mt Isa where is remained for several days. Over land the system never returned to cyclonic central pressures, but the system had a massive geographic influence – extending all the way to New Caledonia on its eastern flank. This appears to be what they got wrong – not a deep low, but a massive extent and stationary. The effect of the powerful drawing in of moisture from the Coral Sea became very evident.

      There is clearly a problem in BOM forecasting not to be able to predict a 1 in a 100 year event like this only 10 days out.

      00

  • #
    • #
      AndyG55

      And look at all the COLD off SW Australia.

      51

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      Increased sea surafce temperature means increased evaporation and of course what goes up will/must come down.

      Where the hell is the increased rain falling ?

      Townsville maybe ?

      60

      • #
        beowulf

        Conversely, that cold water off WA is why we are getting no south-easterly feed of cloud across the continent from the Indian Ocean.

        Possibly going into a negative IOD too. Not good news. A truly massive High SW of Perth is pushing everything away from Oz with a NW flow. The nearest cloud of any consequence in the Indian Ocean is near Madagascar.

        30

      • #
        el gordo

        The blocking in the Tasman has strengthened the trade winds onto the Queensland coast, which may account fro a wet Townsville.

        10

        • #
          TedM

          Most observant el gordo, I’ve also been watching those SST’s. Also the highs further south meaning that we are not getting the consecutive days of NNE to NE wind that I need to flatten out the Southern Ocean so that I can fish my favourite groper spot. Most annoying.

          30

  • #
    robert rosicka

    BOM can’t even predict the weather in advance of a few hours with any great accuracy and even then it’s a coin toss , I pointed this out by the high wind that hit our area and let’s not forget the big Victoriastan wet of 2017 .
    By the way Andy Fitz has posted the evidence you required about Co2 causing warming but don’t be in a hurry to check because it’s low on facts but high on “empirical estimation” , whatever that means .

    93

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      http://athena.ecs.csus.edu/~buckley/CSc231_files/COCOMO.pdf

      Standard science, you know – I was asked to supply empirical studies, which I did.

      Deny away

      418

      • #
        AndyG55

        Your link has nothing to do with anything to do with climate..

        Its base level beginners empty modelling junk. pfutz.

        Just another wasted post.

        You did not put forward any “empirical” studies,

        every one of them was based on models from the ground up.

        Model are NOT empirical evidence, ever.

        294

        • #
          TdeF

          It’s economists pretending that theirs is a real science with equations, no less. Arbitrary equations. Exponential growth even. How was this derived and why does it work? Or is it all just smoke and mirrors, waffle as usual. Economics can join psychology and ecology and zoology in the pretend science department. And nothing to do with the weather or the sum of the weather, climate.

          201

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Ok smarty pants. To do a fully empirical study, as opposed to applying small scale observations scaled to the larger picture, you will need another earth. Got one handy?

          419

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          What, prey tell, is your definition of empirical evidence – my definition is that evidence can and should be used in models to describe observed events.

          For example the empirical evidence for gravity, is used to build a mathematical model.

          In Climate, you use empirical evidence as a way of setting up the starting conditions for a model. Like gravity, which works on different planets, the model is then used to predict other values both in the past and the future.

          Give me your counter examples then

          314

          • #
            TdeF

            Empirical is just evidence. You use this to test a model. However no one has a model of the earth’s climate which works and it is a huge, chaotic system which involves the sun mainly, solar rotation, sun spots, solar cycles, the elliptical orbit, the nutation, dust clouds in our region of the galaxy, cosmic rays which can trigger rain, varying albedo, ocean resevoirs of massive heat, ocean currents, air currents, huge variations in consditions with altitude and depth, mountain ranges, trapped reservoirs of heat, clouds, storms, small areas of extreme heating, polar vortices and so much more. Last and definitely least, animals, plants and people. Maybe. They can affect rainfall in some part of the world and very little else. The rest is handled best by chaos theory. Not counting world events like volcanoes and meteors and major earthquakes which can rend continents and the continual lifting of some parts of the planet and dropping elsewhere.

            Now what (empirical) data do you think is needed to test that model?

            253

          • #
            AndyG55

            You are getting desperate pfutz.

            Stop digging, you are in about 10ft over your head already.

            “In Climate, you use empirical evidence as a way of setting up the starting ”

            Ok, where is your empirical evidence for warming by increased atmospheric CO2

            Without that evidence, you shouldn’t use it in your model.. agreed !!

            Or do you think that you should build it into the model, then use the model as evidence.

            ——-

            Warming by increased atmospheric CO2 has never been measured anywhere on the planet or any other planet..

            That is just the way it is, pfutz

            The effect of gravity of the other hand has been measured to rather precise values, and verified time and time again.

            So much so that all aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, statics, mechanics etc etc etc is based on it. The whole urban jungle depends on that gravity value being correct.

            So, how much, precisely, does an increase of atmospheric CO2 from 400ppm to 450ppm increase the world’s temperature.

            Come on.. empirical data, not some “belief” based guess with a wide margin, based on basically nothing..

            IPCC can’t do it.. do you think you can ?

            204

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Definition of empirical. 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience = empirical data. 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory = an empirical basis for the theory. 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment = empirical laws.

              C02 is rising temperatures are rising and there is a link between them. This is settled science. But you deny it, the question is why?

              218

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Nonsense, Patricia. Go and research the Vostok ice cores as a start. Begin learning from there.

                123

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘C02 is rising temperatures are rising and there is a link between them.’

                Its just a coincidence that CO2 and temperatures were rising at the same time, as you know we have had a plateau in temperatures for a couple of decades as CO2 continues to increase.

                The Pacific Decadal Oscillation can account for all the warming over the past 40 years. Would you like me to show evidence?

                132

              • #
                AndyG55

                There ARE NO MEASUREMENTS of warming by atmospheric CO2

                NOTHING to differentiate NATURAL WARMING from any other warming, should it even exist.

                End of story.

                You know NOTHING about any empirical “laws”

                The temperature has ONLY risen in the last 40 years because of El Ninos and Ocean cycles.

                There is NO evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

                You have presented NO EVIDENCE.

                It does NOT exist.

                Take your rancid anti-science beliefs elsewhere, you are only making a fool of yourself.

                152

              • #
                AndyG55

                I repeat, so you can again avoid answering

                So, how much, precisely, does an increase of atmospheric CO2 from 400ppm to 450ppm increase the world’s temperature?

                Come on.. empirical data, not some “belief” based guess with a wide margin, based on basically nothing..

                IPCC can’t do it.. do you think you can ?

                151

              • #
                AndyG55

                “originating in or based on observation “

                Ok, where are the empirical observations of warming by atmospheric CO2

                —-

                capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment”

                Ok, where are the empirical observations or experiments showing warming by atmospheric CO2?

                —-

                “This is settled science.”

                Then why can’t you find any evidence for it.?

                Keep digging deeper and deeper, pfutz.

                122

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Original Steve, the vostok data has been called into question by subsequent ice cores notably the WAIS.

                but then you would know that, just another inconvenient truth.

                112

              • #
                AndyG55

                WAIS is over a known volcanic region.

                No telling what effect the volcanoes have had in the past.

                They might actually be useful for studying past volcanic activity..

                …. but CO2 and Temperature.. nope.

                121

              • #
                el gordo

                This is not settled science, but Queensland rainfall increases during negative PDO.

                https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050820

                62

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Foar wasis
                https://nsidc.org/data/agdc/summary-results-wais-divide-ice-core-project
                your argument is invalid

                C02 and temp is the settled bit – try to stay on topic el gordo

                314

              • #
                AndyG55

                “C02 is rising temperatures are rising and there is a link between them.”

                WRONG

                During the whole first 9000 years of the Holocene, temperature FELL while CO2 climbed.

                Between 1940 and 1970, CO2 rose while temperatures fell

                From 1980-1997 temperature were steady, while CO2 climbed

                From 2001-2015 temperatures were steady, while CO2 climbed

                The ONLY warming in the last 40 years has come from El Ninos and ocean cycles which cannot be caused by increased atmospheric CO2, .

                Ocean energy comes from the SUN.

                There is absolutely zero signature of warming by atmospheric CO2 in the last 40 years.

                143

              • #
                AndyG55

                “C02 and temp is the settled bit”

                Yes, temperature can drives an increase in atmospheric CO2

                Increased CO2 does not drive temperature, there is NO evidence of that.

                You have shown that very well with your inept inability to produce any.

                Weird that your link doesn’t even mention the huge numbers of volcanoes under the WAIS.

                Seems they decided to IGNORE them.. I wonder why ;-)

                I repeat, so you can again avoid answering, yet again.

                How much, precisely, does an increase of atmospheric CO2 from 400ppm to 450ppm increase the world’s temperature?

                Come on.. empirical data, not some “belief” based guess with a wide margin, based on basically nothing..

                IPCC can’t do it.. do you think you can ?

                143

              • #
                sophocles

                Here, for your edification pFitz, is an empirical study so you can learn how to do it.
                No pFitz, you are wrong yet again: an extra separate planet is not necessary. The one we stand upon is quite adequate.

                This paper details an experiment (to gather empirical data) measuring the temperature/thermal properties of a number of different atmospheres and comparing them with a control atmosphere of CO2. You can then turn the empirical data into empirical evidence and give Andy a big surprise!

                When it comes to obtaining and providing empirical evidence you have shown all the elegance and understanding of the intellectually maladroit, so I thought I would help you out, just a bit. Now, don’t ask Andy or myself to assist you with the equipment, sensors, gases, construction, the doing of it and the recording of your findings. This is to assist you further your own edification, education and development.

                The equipment needed for the experiment is clearly explained — what materials to source, how to make the equipment and the temperature sensors etc.
                The method is clearly explained as is obtaining the empirical evidence — that is, the data from the measurements.
                You shouldn’t have much difficulty replicating this experiment in every detail; you’ve shown yourself to be suitably int bri intellectually acute. It’s an experiment which also needs replicating. If you can’t afford the temperature sensors (platinum thermometer sensors) you could apply for a grant or foot the bill yourself — I think they’re around $90-$100 each. They may be cheaper.

                The author of the paper is Swiss so his English text has a few rough spots in its exposition and expression, but you speak fluent Australian so it shouldn’t be a problem for you.

                Now, you will need a pen or pencil (crayon is acceptable but you may want to avoid finger paint) and paper to record the empirical evidence you are to collect, analyse and draw your conclusions from.

                So, read the paper carefully, work out what you are going to need to make your equipment, write down the steps you need to follow to gather your empirical evidence and get to it. If we don’t hear from you within three years, don’t panic: we won’t send out a search party.

                121

              • #
                sophocles

                You may need to seek some assistance with interconnecting the temperature sensors with suitable switches and some electronics to be able to read them.
                Once that is solved, you will have to calibrate them. Part of that is measuring their drift so you know how to account for it.

                100

              • #
                Lance

                Peter, you are confusing correlation with causation and confusing modeling with evidence.

                Models are NOT evidence. Correlation is NOT a necessary and sufficient proof of any particular relationship.

                The more fundamental question to ask when creating a model is “whether or not”:
                1. The model basis is relevant
                2. All the influential variables are recognized and accounted for
                3. All the variables can be measured and to what accuracy

                As to the relevancy of ANY climate model’s inherent structure, one must first recognize that:

                1. Climate mathematical representations are, by definition, dealing with a coupled, non linear, chaotic, system.
                2. Of necessity, a climate model cannot be an algebraic equation, but rather must be the solution of simultaneous, non linear, ordinary or partial differential equations.
                3. Ed Lorenz is the “Father” of global circulation modeling. He wrote a paper in 1964 outlining precisely why long term weather prediction is not possible. Read it

                https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1963)020%3C0130:DNF%3E2.0.CO;2

                Excerpt: “A simple system representing cellular convection is solved numerically. All of the solutions are found to be unstable, and almost all of them are nonperiodic.

                The feasibility of very-long-range weather prediction is examined in the light of these results.”

                The upshot of it is that solutions are either
                Periodic
                Non Periodic
                Deterministic
                Non Deterministic
                Stable
                Unstable

                You appear to imply that because “some models” have been created, that they are complete, stable, deterministic, and periodic, and therefore should be trusted as a basis of representational “science” and “proof” that justifies massive economic, social, industrial, and political, restructuring.

                Let’s think about those models you support as relevant. Every one of them assumes, a priori, that there is only One relevant parameter of importance: CO2. That ought to be a big red flag in and of itself. The atmosphere and climate within it, are comprised of thousands of variables both known and unknown, measurable and not measurable. Please explain how all of those variables are identified, prioritized, measured, modeled, compared to real data, and refined to exactly what level of accuracy and repeatability.

                If the models are non deterministic, non periodic, and unstable, it is absolutely impossible for them to produce anything useful other than proof of chaos theory.

                If the models are deterministic, periodic and stable, then they ought be able to hindcast any historic period in all of history which can be proved by actual recorded evidenciary measurements. They cannot.

                The only thing that stabilizes a harmonic system is negative feedback. If system feedback were positive, then the Earth would have either frozen solid or burned to a crisp sometime in previous history. There is evidence of glaciation. The cyclical nature of cooling and warming indicates a quasi periodic system, or at best, occasional analogous states that cannot be predicted.

                My point is that present day Global Circulation Models are doomed to failure because they are inadequate to the task and the underlying mathematics indicate that no long term predictive models are rationally possible.

                So give all this a good hard think before claiming the science is settled, models are proof of anything, that correlation proves causation.

                121

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Patricia – please supply scientific papers that back what you’re saying.

                “its disputed” has nothing to back it up. Again.

                As a semi-science point to start , try this . You can see temperature does not lag behind CO2, as it should – if – CO2 was driving temperature ( which it doesnt )

                https://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/08/420000-years-of-data-suggestss-global-warming-is-not-man-made/

                71

              • #
                The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

                Sophocles:

                Excellent article. I think the money quote is Allmendinger’s Figure 33. He shows the empirical relation between the temperature of “air” and pure carbon dioxide. It does not state within the article whether this “air” was ‘ambient air‘, which would include 0.04% carbon dioxide, but if it does, then I came up with the following, on that basis of that assumption:

                It would take just over seventeen doublings of carbon dioxide concentration to get from 0.04% carbon dioxide, to (essentially) pure carbon dioxide (or 100%). According to Allmendinger’s data, the temperature difference (Figure 33) between the ‘air’ and ‘carbon dioxide’ was about five Celsius degrees (actually, a little less than five, but let us call it five Celsius degrees, just for giggles and grins … ). Now, I’m sure my Math is suspect here, but if going from 0.04% carbon dioxide, to 100% carbon dioxide, and the temperature rise is about five Celsius degrees, that works out to about 0.294 Celsius degrees of temperature rise per doubling.

                Last time I checked, the IPCC tells us (and has, for about the last thirty years or so) that the ECS is indisputably better than 3.2 Celsius degrees per doubling of carbon dioxide concentration.

                Again, I could be very wrong here, but last time I checked, that was called ‘an error of an order of magnitude’.

                Lindzen and Choi (2007?) came up with an ECS of 0.7 Celsius degrees per doubling, so it would appear that even their estimate is high. And, I believe I’m correct when I state that most alarmists will agree that an ECS under one Celsius degree per doubling, essentially means there is no issue w.r.t. atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.

                Once again, that’s a great find on your part. I think the experiment needs to be done (replicated), and expanded so that other “greenhouse gasses” (e.g. methane, CFC’s … ) are similarly investigated, and empirical temperature effects are measured.

                I do not think one should hold one’s breath, waiting for P. Fitzroy to undertake such investigations, however.

                My regards to all (Hi Roy!!!),

                Vlad

                50

              • #
                AndyG55

                And of course, a greenhouse traps energy by blocking convection.

                As soon as convection is allowed, the ECS drops to ZERO.

                Convection and Conduction etc RULE the lower atmosphere.

                81

              • #
                robert rosicka

                You really don’t know when to give up do you Fitz ?

                “Definition of empirical. 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience = empirical data. 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory = an empirical basis for the theory. 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment = empirical laws.”

                How does point “3″ help your cause ?

                21

              • #
                theRealUniverse

                Temperatures were almost the same as present (holocene) levels WHEN the CO2 was at 7% Thats (SEVEN % not .4%) in the Permian!!! When the plants were VERY happy!
                That was stated by the late Prof Bob Carter.

                30

              • #
                sophocles

                To:The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler @5,1.1.3.16
                who said:

                It does not state within the article whether this “air” was ‘ambient air‘

                From page 14 of the paper (2nd to last paragraph, bottom right hand corner of the page):

                … different gases were employed:
                ambient air, a 4:1 N2/O2 mixture, CO2, Ar, Ne and He.

                If the air is “ambient” then it contains whatever H2O vapour (humidity) and CO2 was present in the air where the experiment was located. The experimenter says “ambient air“.
                The 4:1 N2/02 mixture is a form of “artificial” air without any of the trace IR sensitive (CO2 and H2O) and other gases present and the others using noble gases was to see what their properties manifested.

                (I won’t spoil the results … :-P )

                Thanks for the query Vlad. I can tell that pFitz hasn’t bothered to even read the paper because if he had, he could have answered your question and should have been able to immediately. Instead he’s showing himself to be a childish fool, not worthy of any of the respect normally shown to an adult.

                pFitz: you blub to the moderators that we aren’t being nice to you. Then you show not only the moderators but the rest of the world that you’re not worth being nice to.

                20

              • #
                The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

                Thanks, Sophocles; I rushed through the discussion so fast that I missed that.

                It would appear that a ‘pure’ carbon dioxide atmosphere does not cause much heating. Note that P. Fitzroy has not bothered to answer why the experimental design is “invalid” (#24 ff).

                Vlad

                20

              • #
                sophocles

                To The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler: @ 15.1.1.3.21

                You should find Allmendinger’s second paper (from the same experiment) of interest: it’s a more detailed look into the properties of gases under direct solar irradiation.
                [ https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-novel-investigation-about-the-thermal-behaviour-of-gases-under-theinfluence-of-irradiation-a-further-argument-against-the-greenh-2157-7617-1000393.pdf ]

                Enjoy.

                Yes, I have noticed pFitz has been discourteous. He really hasn’t a clue. He’s not even aware that the atmospheric gases are regarded, even by the IPCC, as transparent to IR except for water vapour and CO2. Therefore, in theory, none, except “ambient air” and CO2 should have warmed when exposed to direct solar insolation. That was a bit of a surprise finding they all did, to the same limiting temperature, despite the use of extreme thermal insulation. And I don’t know how he could expect the Greenhouse properties of gases to be tested and measured except in a tightly controlled greenhouse. Hmph, experimental design invalid. His Controller probably told him to say that. Yes, Totally clueless with the total arrogance of the totally ignorant. AndyG55 is quite correct.

                20

          • #
            AndyG55

            Time for you to wake up and realise that…

            the ONLY thing supporting the “assumption” of warming by atmospheric CO2, is “assumption” based models.

            There is NO real empirical evidence.

            Have you the intelligence to realise that, after all your failed efforts ?

            I somehow doubt it.

            136

          • #
            robert rosicka

            Oh my god Fitzy has no idea what empirical evidence means , now I know why he has faith in the IPCC and charlatan scientists.
            And also why he is so clueless .

            145

            • #
              AndyG55

              The more we can make him yabber on, the more he exposes his basic ignorance about all things to do with science.

              Its quite fun really, watching him continually making an absolute goose of himself. :-)

              But its his choice to keep going.

              112

              • #
                sophocles

                ts quite fun really, watching him continually making an absolute goose of himself.

                Agreed. He’s the best fuzzy toy we’ve had on the blog for a while.
                Note: fuzzy is an accurate and descriptive term …

                91

          • #
            Mark M

            Comparing failed doomsday global warming with gravity.

            Like your failed apocalypse, there is no gravity. The earth sucks.

            101

            • #
              sophocles

              there is no gravity. The earth sucks.

              If he can complete the task I’ve just set out for him and he actually learns from it then he may just come to that conclusion too.
              It will be a big awakening for him, Mark, a big achievement.

              40

          • #

            ‘In Climate you use empirical evidence as a way of setting up the starting conditions for a model …the model is then used to predict other values both in the past and in the future.’ Peter Fitzroy #15.1.1.3

            Professor Judith Curry @ Climate Etc, Post Nov. 2016, concerning the reliability of Global Climate Models:

            ‘There are literally thousands of different choices made in the construction of a climate model (e.g. resolution, complexity of the sub-models, parameterizations). Each different set of choices produces a different model having different sensitivities. Further, different modeling groups have different focal interests e.g. long paleoclimate simulations, details of ocean circulations, nuances of the interactions between aerosol particles and clouds, the carbon cycle. These different interests focus computational resources on a particular aspect of simulating the climate system at the expense of others. (P3)

            Problems arise from uncertainties in model structure, model parameterizations and initial conditions and from ad hoc modeling to compensate for the absence of neglected factors. Continual ad hoc adjustments in models, (calibration) masks underlying deficiencies in model structural form. (P5) And therefore model calibration to match 20th century historic temperatures is no metric for models’ accuracy and nor does agreement of models’ forecasts and hindcasts imply that a model gives a correct answer for the right reason. For example, the various coupled climate models used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report each reproduces the time series for the 20th century but with different feedbacks and sensitivities producing different simulations.(P5)

            All nature faithfully? Nope!

            60

          • #
            Bobl

            You would think, but gravity is linear, deterministic and invariant where weather is stochastic (random and chaotic, non linear and variant).

            This means you can describe gravity mathematically but you can’t describe weather. Because weather is chaotic, the integral of weather (climate ) is also chaotic and mathematically indescribable. The basic idea of feedback in climate is misapplied because bodes constraints are not observed. Particularly the need for a linear invariant, closed system an active (amplifying) element, and an unlimited energy supply both missing in climate. Gravity and weather are as far apart mathematically as chalk and cheese.

            50

            • #
              sophocles

              Christopher Lord Monkton found that feedback was incorrectly applied—a big error; they got the equation wrong!—and I haven’t heard the models have been corrected … yet.

              20

              • #
                Bobl

                Yes and he is in fact also correct, but he also ignores the fact that there is no amplifying element in the climate and that the energy supply is limited.

                Monckton’s strategy is to disprove things using minimal change to the basic equation, He tackles the mathematics itself. I on the other hand note that there are certain prerequisites for positive feedback to occur in electronics that have no equivalent in climate.

                20

        • #

          Oh, el gordo @#14, that weather stone is so empirical! https://imgur.com/tic1TGy

          70

        • #
          sophocles

          Awww, c’mon Andy. At least he has a sense of humour. Misplaced or not, I haven’t laughed so hard since this argument started out!

          40

      • #
        robert rosicka

        An estimation is what your mechanic gives you and is almost always wrong , an estimation proves four fifths of fug all and I’m astounded you think it’s evidence of something .
        You’ve been brainwashed really bad mate and we can’t help you here .

        82

      • #
        Ian Hill

        What’s Nanagement?

        30

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        The cost of software modelling??? what has that got to do with it. THeres no science data.

        20

    • #
      John PAK

      To be fair the BoM do reasonable 4 day isobar charts but they will never progress until they include other factors such as Sun-Earth magnetic connections or the state of our magnetosphere. It will be hard because our magnetosphere is fading by the year and the BoM is a big organisation that changes but slowly and after the event.

      In North Wales the Mountain Weather Forecast is remarkably good on the 24 hr scale. If you want to plan a nice day out in the hills you can reliably determine cloud base heights and rainfall times or reschedule your plans at 7:00 and drive to the other side of Wales to avoid bad weather.

      It is perhaps a wild expectation on our part to even ask for a forecast beyond a week’s time because weather has so many inter-active variables. Computers are fabulous at doing long calculations with fixed variables but if I say x is between 5 & 9 and y is between 2 & 4 I end up with a rather useless wide range of possibilities. Perhaps the BoM imagine their computer actually has intelligence rather than merely functioning as a tool.

      31

      • #
        Bill In Oz

        Yes John I check out those 4 day isobar charts as well – though it took me a while to find them on the BOM’s website.. They are not promoted widely nowadays though I can remember a time when these 4 day charts were published in major p=newspapers.

        Here is web address : http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/4day_col.shtml

        NB : It took me quite a while to find this again as I had not bookmarked it.

        The other useful thing BOM does is provide the radar images of coming rain clouds.

        71

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        Lets face it. The BOM dont understand or have noone in the organization that has a clue about solar magnetic or solar CME events and other SOLAR related stuff. i.e. The sun is totally responsible for the weather/climate. (coupled to the coreolis force). Maybe thats too hard too, its related to inertial frames on a rotating sphere!!

        20

  • #
    Steve of Cornubia

    I don’t know why BOM calls them ‘weather forecasts’.

    It’s very cunning of them to say, “40% chance of rain”, but what use is that as a forecast? They might as well just toss the radar image out and let us look at it ourselves.

    Even if they said, “1% chance of rain”, and it did indeed rain, they could claim they were right.

    122

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      I laugh at the xx% rain for the day. I do just that, look at the radar, better to guess by looking at chaotic events like rain cells arriving over where I live.

      20

  • #
    TdeF

    Melbrourne today. For days the BOM has predicted heavy rain, for Melbourne at least. Even this morning it was 8mm-20mm.

    Having waited all day with clear skies, the rain fall was a precise 0mm.

    I have cancelled events on 90% certainty of heavy rain and not a drop has fallen anywhere.

    Now I don’t blame anyone. Given what is on the radar and how flukey it is as air masses spin and collide, anything is possible in Melbourne, but the idea of certainty is ridiculous.

    Given the Climate is nothing more than the sum of the weather, a long run of missing rain constitutes a drought and suddenly we have Climate Change as predicted, not just bad luck. Now that is no longer innocent. That is deliberately misleading everyone when the best models and the best predictions fail but it is flipped around to prove an absurd proposition.

    Last summer was in fact very cool. So far this summer as well. What do the headlines and the BOM say? The hottest summer in history. Absolute rubbish.

    192

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      Yes TdeF, that is what I notice here in the Adelaide Hills.
      Back in December the BOm was saying it would bucket here.We got maybe 10 mm.
      Instead it bucketed a 200 ks East of here and caused flooding !

      We’ve had some – 4-5 very hot days . But most have been in the mid twenties to low thirties.

      What has been awful is the strong dry winds whether from the North or from the South.. Strong & dry ! So of course the gardens are all dehydrated !

      93

    • #
      Serp

      Year in, year out we’re assured it’s the hottest ever but never shown the arithmetic justifying these assertions.

      Echo answers “what arithmetic?”

      83

  • #
    WXcycles

    As of right now it looks like this:

    Date Rain mm
    27/09:00am 30.0
    28/09:00am 51.6
    29/09:00am 80.0
    30/09:00am 108.6
    31/09:00am 153.0
    1/09:00am 216.4
    2/09:00am 141.8
    3/09:00am 171.6
    4/09:00am 181.4
    5/09:00am 42.2
    6/09:00am 110.4
    7/09:00am 16.4
    8/09:00am 87.0
    TOTAL 1390.4 mm

    We’ve got another 87 mm late this afternoon and into the evening.

    50

    • #
      WXcycles

      Update: More rain over night in Townsville.

      Date | Rain mm
      27/09:00am 30.0
      28/09:00am 51.6
      29/09:00am 80.0
      30/09:00am 108.6
      31/09:00am 153.0
      1/09:00am 216.4
      2/09:00am 141.8
      3/09:00am 171.6
      4/09:00am 181.4
      5/09:00am 42.2
      6/09:00am 110.4
      7/09:00am 16.4
      8/09:00am 118.0
      TOTAL 1421.4 mm in 13 days

      00

  • #
    Bill In Oz

    I. have grown tired of the uninformed comments from Peter Fitzroy.

    AND I am tired of the nasty semi abusive remarks thrown at him by those of us who are not supporters of his cult.

    Perhaps it is time to simply ignore him completely ?

    It seems he get’s his joy from parading his ‘click bait’ & waiting for howls of outrage, rather than actually engaging is a discussion.

    Bill

    123

  • #
    neil

    For the past two years I have been shouting that the BoM has become a disgrace of pseudo-science hacks scrambling for the dregs of climate change grants.

    First I noticed the BoM’s over estimates of temperature forecasts, always 2~3 degrees above actuals but never below, but who goes back and checks forecasts against outcomes? nobody!

    Then outrages predictions of future seasons, hottest ever, driest ever, worst storms ever. but they never happen. Nobody goes back and checks, nobody calls them out.

    I have searched the BoM and the net for records of their forecasts, to compare to actuals, they don’t exist they just vanish into the cyber space.

    But they achieve what was intended, make the unwashed masses feel that it is all happening because they hear it on the news every night.

    112

    • #
      sophocles

      Neil said:

      I have searched the BoM and the net for records of their forecasts, to compare to actuals, they don’t exist they just vanish into the cyber space.

      You could visit the site daily and whenever you find one of those predictions, save it to disc. Then check them and record what didn’t happen or whatever. Then you have a record. They can’t delete it or remove it from your machine—only you can do that.
      The problem with this solution is that it’s so very tedious …
      (You can use your web browser to access any file on your hard drive.)

      80

  • #
    Another Ian

    O/T More figure fiddling

    “The Obvious Biomass Emissions Error”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/07/the-obvious-biomass-emissions-error/

    30

  • #
    Dennis

    You might be interested in reading about The Wentworth Forum Of Concerned Scientists and associated organisations.

    Professor Tim Flannery is one of members listed, also note a Mr.Rob Purvis who is a high wealth businessman long interested in matters Green.

    The Forum obviously has substantial financial support and backing, and influence in high places which does explain a lot about the state of our nation politically.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Group_of_Concerned_Scientists

    50

  • #
    robert rosicka

    I’m sure the private long range weather forecasters were predicting a wetter than usual summer unlike BOM who were predicting a long dry summer .

    10

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    in relation to the experiment carried out be Thomas Allmendinger.

    He made a greenhouse, pointed it at the sun and then said all the gasses heated up.

    Science mistake number 3: the experimental design is invalid.

    36

    • #
      AndyG55

      You have zero clue about “science”, pfutz

      You have shown that is basically every post you have ever made.

      You are not competent to make a call about scientific validity of an experiment.

      —–

      Do you have any empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming or has any effect on climate whatsoever.?

      So far. NADA, Nothing.. You still haven’t even figured out what “empirical” means…

      … and when you copy/pasted a definition you showed that you do have any.

      52

    • #
      AndyG55

      And of course, a greenhouse traps energy by blocking convection.

      As soon as convection is allowed, the ECS drops to ZERO.

      51

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      and as Andyg55 likes point out in relation to the initial empirical C02 experiments, what happens in a lab can not be extrapolated to the atmosphere, although he appears to make an exception in this case, I wonder why?

      35

    • #
      The Depraved and MOST Deplorable Vlad the Impaler

      Statement: ” … the experimental design is invalid.”

      Explain.

      20

    • #
      sophocles

      Thank you pFitz.
      I gave you a chance. You haven’t taken it.
      I can tell from the points you are attempting to make that you haven’t bothered to read the paper, maybe you’ve just looked at the pretty pictures.

      You have instead successfully proved Andy’s many and perhaps overly often repeated points. Every one of them.
      I can’t be bothered answering, refuting or even explaining your points. I can’t even be bothered to say `Wrong.’ They and you are a waste of time because the answers to them are in the paper’s discussion and you’re either too lazy or too stupid to read the paper.

      A couple of years ago, I had a Down’s Syndrome young man in one of my classes. We had some minor difficulties with the paper’s content but he made it. Alongside you, pFitz, he was a positive genius. I now think you’re too stupid to read the paper.

      I once called you a Space Cadet.
      In a University, pFitz, that is an ultimate insult: it means the only thing you have learned is how to waste space and time or that is the only thing you are capable of learning.

      Congratulations pFitz: You have successfully proven you possess both facets.
      Little boy: You’re a Space Cadet.

      21

  • #
    robert rosicka

    I think these guys have a denial syndrome, wind and solar to give South Australia the cheapest power !
    Roof top solar will ensure that we will meet our Paris agreement !

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-08/australia-ahead-of-paris-agreement-target-by-five-years/10789810

    20

  • #
    Mark M

    Another one the BoM failed to predict …

    WA’s summer grain harvest the second biggest on record

    https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/wa-s-summer-grain-harvest-the-second-biggest-on-record-20190201-p50v5y.html

    “The near record haul was driven by a record harvest in the Kwinana Zone, with a total of 8 million tonnes of grain delivered, beating the previous record of 7.5 million tonnes set in 2013-14.”

    40

  • #
    Geoff Derrick

    In reply to TdeF at 4.1.1, it is claimed that at Wivenhoe Dam in the great Brisbane flood of 2011, ‘blowout plugs’ were used to save the dam. I believe this is not true. The Wivenhoe Dam has fuse plugs incorporated into dam management. These are easily erodable stone and earth walls located to the west of the main dam wall, and at a level slightly lower than the dam wall. If they are breached, the dam will enter a phase of uncontrolled loss of water for at least a few metres of water level, as these fuse plugs erode away. In 2011, these fuse plugs were never damaged or used. Engineers simply dithered for too long as to when should some water be released by opening the gates, and they simply left it too late. In somewhat of a panic mode, the gates were opened to save the fuse plugs, and as a result Brisbane got a flood 30 hours later that was much bigger than it need have been. This is much the same situation as happened at Ross River Dam, but there is no evidence yet that engineers dithered at Ross River.

    61

    • #
      AndyG55

      That puts what happened at Wivenhoe is a more correct light,

      Thanks, my memory of that is stale.

      Can you tell us, is the maximum flood storage of Wivenhoe twice or three times the normal storage amount?

      I thought the 192% was above the normal storage level.

      Cheers

      30

      • #
        TdeF

        Also “According to the official line Wivenhoe should be able to hold a maximum of about 225% that is a 100% for the drinking component and around 1¼ times as much in the flood component.”

        I found this in an amazing document which discusses the tremendous risk posed by Wivenhoe

        As he says, even the plugs are nowhere near enough in a torrential downpour. Luckily it did not pour that night, but it was a near thing.

        40

      • #

        AndyG55

        On the 20th January 2011, during that huge flood in Brisbane, I was still working on a Post for the Wivenhoe/Somerset dam levels and releases. (Part 3 in a Series on that subject)

        By necessity, it is a huge Post, (5500 words and numerous images of those dam levels, both Wivenhoe and also Somerset, whose water releases flow directly into Wivenhoe) but at the time, I took screen images of all the dam levels on the leading up to, during, and after the ‘event’.

        If you want to read it, the link is as follows.

        Wivenhoe Dam Levels – The Critical Days

        Tony.

        60

        • #

          Incidentally, and I’m sure this is a factor in dam levels.

          The amount of water stored behind Wivenhoe at 100% is part (half) of the water supply for South East Queensland, (SEQ), one part of that SEQ water supply grid.

          Wivehoe, at 100% is the water supply component only. Everything above 100% is flood mitigation only.

          Wivenhoe (at 100%) makes up HALF of that total water supply for SEQ.

          At the current (at 2011, during the flood) cost for what the Government sells its water for to consumers, that 100% Wivenhoe level is worth $2.6 Billion, just the value of the water alone.

          Wivenhoe at 100% is a State Government resource of high value.

          Also of note here is that Wivenhoe was at 100% following the ‘big dump’ of the New Year 1999. Then we had major drought for seven and a half years and Wivenhoe fell to its lowest levels ever recorded, just below 15%, even with two reasonable rain dumps along the way, 2000, and 2003. During that time, SEQ used water for every contigency in SEQ. It then took a further three and a half years to rise back to 100% in the lead up to the flood of 2011. The point here is that Wivenhoe supplied ALL of SEQ water needs for seven and a half years under drought conditions. So, it’s not like a small drought will wipe out the water supply, if it can last for seven and a half years.

          Tony.

          100

    • #
      TdeF

      It’s a moot point whether the fuse plugs blew or whether they were about to blow and forced the engineers to open the gates.
      They forced the issue. The engineers had no choice. Exactly why they were put in there, to take the matter out of the hands of Green politicians.

      61

      • #
        TdeF

        Besides,this business of % is getting away from my primary argument. As we know it is a land of ‘droughts and flooding rains’ we should be preparing for the flooding rains. Concrete dams, more dams, spillways, weirs, local storage, turkey nests, low loss concrete channels or pipes. Sea walls. Not run for the insurance companies expecting that they will compensate us for our indolence and the Green refusal to imprison water and let it run to the sea. No borders for people or water. Of course the insurance companies will do their best to underpay or not pay anyone.

        We know the climate in Australia. We have known it for 200 years. It’s about time we stopped acting like it is not mainly a perpetually drought stricken, largely hot arid desert and start to change it for the people who live here and who will come. If there is any denial, it’s the Green denial of the climate in Australia. Wildfires, floods, good years and bad years are the climate, not God’s punishment for aircraft and cows and the industrial revolution and fish farms.

        80

  • #
    Dennis

    O/T

    Electricity generators comparison of costs in US$ … 2016

    https://www.eia.gov/electricity/generatorcosts/

    10

  • #
    TdeF

    In the US, the President’s State of the Union address has flushed out the Climate lobby and the socialist lobby using it as a lever to get control of government.

    Occasio Cortez wants a Green deal which will make the US more profitable with no borders and a solution to the ‘Climate Crisis’. No cows, no planes, high speed trains (overseas?) and payment for those who do not want to work.

    Pelosi has also formed a committee from which Cortez is excluded, but they will want to shut down aircraft, cows, fossil fuels.

    Bernie Sanders is just fuming. MAGA has been augmented by Never Socialist.

    And the whole fantasy of a ‘Climate Crisis’ is exposed for what it is, a plot by socialists to create and end of world scenario unless the US stops having borders and surrenders its unique advantages.

    It’s just a shame for them that the US is faring so well economically under Trump and in the middle of a freezing winter, Global Warming is obviously missing in action. No matter how much the weather men try to manufacture warming.

    Now it is obvious. Global Warming is outrageous political science by socialists,communists and opportunists. Nothing more. As for Anti-FA, they are socialists and the Fascists were socialists too. The Democrats refuse to even mention the total economic collapse of Venezuela under model socialism.

    Still no rain in Melbourne. It raises the question. If we can change the weather, should we? Then, what do people want?

    81

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I think Trump will break the Death-o-crats on the border wall…..its their titanic..

      The Dems lashed themselves, frothing at the mouth and screeching like mad dogs, devoid of any common sense, to the mast and said they would go down with the ship.

      Just waiting for it to sink now…its already taken on quite a bit of water….

      50

    • #
      Greebo

      Slightly OT, but did you notice the white clad womocrats not applaud Trump when he called out late term and AT BIRTH abortions? Ok, orange man bad and all that, but seriously?

      50

  • #
    robert rosicka

    As far as predicting the weather goes Chopper Reid shows he can do it .

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4PTbl90Cx8k

    Warning some bad language

    20

  • #
  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    in Breaking News
    The controversial Rocky Hill coal mine in the Hunter Valley will not go ahead after a landmark ruling in the land and environment court on Friday that cited the impact it would have had on climate change.

    But AGL announces new $450 million, 250-megawatt hydro power plant for NSW.

    Mind you AGL is also increasing boiler capacity for some of its coal fired units, $25 million for Loy Yang A, and is planning a Gas unit at Newcastle

    27

    • #
      robert rosicka

      What impact on Climate change ? If it was me I would appeal because as we keep telling you there is no evidence to support the ruling .

      91

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        it was an appeal by the prospective miners,

        In his judgment, Preston explicitly cited the project’s potential impact on climate change, writing that an open cut coalmine in the Gloucester valley “would be in the wrong place at the wrong time”.

        “Wrong place because an open cut coal mine in this scenic and cultural landscape, proximate to many people’s homes and farms, will cause significant planning, amenity, visual and social impacts,” he wrote.

        “Wrong time because the GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions of the coal mine and its coal product will increase global total concentrations of GHGs at a time when what is now urgently needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep decrease in GHG emissions. These dire consequences should be avoided. The Project should be refused.

        46

        • #
          AndyG55

          Ok, so he has based his decision on scientifically unprovable nonsense.

          Thanks for the confirmation. :-) (pftuz keeps furiously digging deeper and deeper.)

          This is a political decision, no matter what words were used.

          With over 1000 new coal powered stations being built, all this will do is cause a minor increase in the price of coal

          Other coal miners cheer out loud. :-)

          “Wrong place because an open cut coal mine in this scenic and cultural landscape, proximate to many people’s homes and farms, will cause significant planning, amenity, visual and social impacts,” he wrote”

          Now if he had stuck to that, probably a valid reason.

          Pity the same thing doesn’t apply to wind turbines. Agreed, pfutz?

          102

        • #
          robert rosicka

          This decision may make the greenies happy but what’s not being told here , what’s missing from this story .
          Who did the mining company offer up to counter the ideology from Will Stefan ? Just how much effort was put in to defend the mining company ?
          Was there insurance taken out if the mining venture couldn’t go ahead etc etc .
          I smell a rat .

          Stop a mine going ahead because of concerns to local environment , water courses etc maybe but not because someone thinks it may , could , possibly at some time but we don’t know for sure increase the temperature in Australia by .000000 of a degree .

          62

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Will Stefan was used as an expert witness ! The Judge has links to the American EPA and according to Wiki “He received in 2010 an award from the Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network (AECEN) for his environmental work.[4]“.

        Might not be a conflict of interest but it looks like the deck was stacked in this decision.

        91

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Last April, the Environmental Defenders Office of NSW secured approval from the court to join the case, arguing on behalf of its client Groundswell Gloucester that the mine’s detrimental impact on climate change and on the social fabric of the town must be considered.

          worth every penny

          26

    • #
      AndyG55

      “250-megawatt hydro power plant for NSW”

      Have fun getting any new dams passed the Greens

      Although they will probably let a “renewables” dam through, while stopping dams for water supply.

      Hydro is “dispatchable”, so long as you have water, pumped or otherwise.

      62

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        When the economy starts to falter from unreliable power, you wont find a green anywhere…they will disappear to save their own skins….

        71

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        Hydro is the REAL renewable if the greens stopped worrying about a we bit of land taken up with a dam.
        Tony may correct me but I think hydro is much cheaper (generator cost) than wind or solar per GigaWatt.

        51

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Ironic that professor Steffan testifies in court presumably under oath that Australia isn’t going to meet its Paris commitment if the mine goes ahead but today a professor Blakey from ANU says that Australia will meet and beat its Paris commitment 5 years early by 2025 .
          Aren’t they both from the same uni ? What is the penalty for giving false information under oath .

          71

        • #
          sophocles

          Dams are anathema to the water melons: it’s the damage they do to the widdle fishies environment and their freedoms to come and go which upsets them.

          61

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Looks like it’s a goer

        “THIS is a good news story for the Upper Hunter, not just Muswellbrook,” says Muswellbrook Shire Council general manager Fiona Plesman.

        After calling for Expressions of Interest on a significant Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) opportunity, council announced this week the preferred operator to take the project into the next phase of feasibility and development.

        Ms Plesman said AGL Energy Ltd demonstrated the capacity and commitment to deliver the pumped hydro project and progress with a full feasibility assessment on Bells Mountain, near McCullys Gap.

        AGL and Muswellbrook Coal owner Idemitsu confirmed, in May, they were working on a separate but linked proposal to use a mine void below the mountain for the lower section of a pumped hydro storage power plant.

        24

        • #
          AndyG55

          So long as it can deliver cheap, reliable, dispatchable, electricity 24/365, (like coal and gas can), I don’t have any problem with pumped hydro.

          Hopefully they won’t destroy to much of the landscape with wind turbines.

          I assume the Greens will put up no resistance to building two dams, or interrupting river flows.

          41

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Did you not comprehend AndyG55? The bottom on is already in place (it is an old open cut).

            25

            • #
              AndyG55

              And the top? You are being dumb again pfutz.

              And where is the water coming from?

              62

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                “no resistance to building two dams” from your post. They only need one, that was the question i was asking about your comprehension

                24

              • #
                AndyG55

                Being stupid and pedantic again, pfutz.

                “they were working on a separate but linked proposal”

                Ie, its not confirmed.

                Are your comprehension abilities really that poor ???

                Where will the top dam or dams be, and where will the water come from.

                42

          • #
            beowulf

            Another AGL ooh-look-a-squirrel stunt. It is a re-hash of the previously announced Bells Mountain PUMPED HYDRO plant to be built due north of the Liddell/Bayswater coal complex & NE of Muswellbrook. 250MW with 8 hours storage. To be completed in Financial Year 26 whatever that means (2026??).

            They have only secured an option for the upper reservoir site. Nothing more.
            https://www.agl.com.au/-/media/aglmedia/documents/about-agl/asx-and-media-releases/2019/1896463.pdf?la=en&hash=960B41252060B8E9AEB3D8A5AABA5953

            Let’s deduct that from AGL’s shortfall of dispatchable power replacements for Liddell which was 1,648MW short as at a month ago and we get a current projected shortfall of 1,398MW, and after 8 hours we’re back to 1,648MW.

            Importantly, AGL is committing to nothing. From its Feb 2019 report:

            “Bells Mountain, along with a proposed big battery at Liddell, are likely to form part of the replacement assets for the ageing and increasingly decrepit coal generator that is scheduled to close in 2022. But AGL says such decisions, including that for a new gas plant near Newcastle, were impossible to make right now given the current policy uncertainty.”

            40

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          There are at lest 2500 possible sites for pumped hydro. and we already have one in place, which is going to be expanded, using a dam named after a relative

          https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/origin-s-plan-to-double-its-hydro-power-at-shoalhaven-20180507-p4zdv3.html

          25

          • #
            AndyG55

            So, Dams are now ok on the Shoalhaven are they. hmmm. !!

            Greens will say NOTHING, what’s the bet.

            But try to build a supply dam at Welcome Reef, .. no, no, no. !!

            51

          • #

            As much as I dislike having to respond to Peter Fitzroy on anything, I suppose that you are aware that pumped hydro is a nett power consumer. It’s not ‘New’ power. It takes more power to pump the water back up to the upper holding pondage than the power it generates going back down and through the turbines.

            Hence it would be consuming mainly coal fired power during the post midnight period, so it would not be alleviating any perceived CO2 emitting ‘problem’.

            And in fact, this is exactly what has been happening now with Tumut Three across the last two to three weeks.

            And please don’t use that hackneyed old using wind power when it’s generating over its 30% average. You either use the power to pump it back up the ‘hill’ or use the power for actual power consumption, You don’t get to use it twice, I’m afraid.

            Sometimes facts just can’t help but get ‘in the way’ of green dreams. eh!

            Tony.

            (I hope there’s no spelling mistakes here)

            141

            • #
              AndyG55

              I was assuming they would use erratic and unreliable wind and solar to pump water, from somewhere.

              Solar would give them 6-8 hours a day, and wind might contribute something occasionally.

              The pumps SHOULD NOT be hooked up to coal fired electricity.

              They need to prove they can do it without.

              112

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              In pure economic terms, yes these are goers
              http://www.entura.com.au/news/entura-completes-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project-technical-feasibility-study/
              That one is in Queensland
              this gives the economics and efficiencies
              https://jrenewables.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40807-018-0048-1

              However, none of that really matters, as I’m sure AGL have done their own business case and are proceeding on that basis.

              I’m sure AGL will consider your input though

              25

              • #
                TdeF

                “AGL have done their own business case and are proceeding on that basis.”

                Yes. Of course. They have increased their annual profit x6. Shutting down coal and pushing wind and solar and pumped hydro should see electricity supplies soar and shortages multiply, pushing profits up much higher.

                Why is there a presumption that the interests of an uncontrolled private electricity supplier are those of all Australians. They have a licence to print money at our expense.
                We paid for Liddell. AGL paid $0 and cannot wait to shut it. To save the planet, of course.

                61

              • #
                AndyG55

                “I’m sure AGL will consider your input though”

                And all the subsidies they can rake in, too.

                51

            • #

              We can take heart from the fact that Peter Fitzroy has come out in favour of new coal plants for Australia. And that’s without the albatross of CC. Says he’ll vote for them!

              So maybe he’s just joshing when he talks coal down, or someone else is geeupping us by using his account name. (Of course, pushing rivers uphill is very coal intensive, so maybe he likes coal for that reason.)

              But I’ll take it that Peter is on the level about liking and voting for new and more efficient coal plants for Australia. After all, what intelligent man, looking at centuries supply of the good Permian black along those vast eastern basins, would want to clutter his country with Chinese energy hardware made with Australian coal? When we can just make power with the coal, duh.

              Nope. I can see why Peter is in favour of new coal plants for Oz.

              60

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                The best, more affordable and reliable energy mix is a balanced one with contributions from gas, renewables, new HELE coal, and later from carbon capture and storage as well as (eventually) nuclear. To get there we need a genuine and comprehensive technology neutral approach. The Finkel review has made a valuable contribution to this objective but with a couple of important exceptions. Said Brendan Pearson who is the chief executive of the Minerals Council of Australia.

                We are really arguing about the relative mix, it is never going to be, as it was in the past, just one or two methods for power generation

                36

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                But that does not mean we need new mines

                16

              • #

                What gets me is he still believes in CCS, making me believe his whole ‘thing’ here is just one big ‘wind up’.

                How easy would it be to actually do some research, but then again, as he said himself, electrical power generation is not his field of expertise, so why should he even bother to look it up eh!

                Tony.

                80

              • #
                AndyG55

                CCS is a Joke and totally unnecessary,

                Increased atmospheric CO2 is TOALLY necessary and has zero possible downside.

                New mines will be needed to help bring the developed countries up out of their low-energy situations.

                1000 new coal fired power stations around the world will have to be fed, so populations can advance.

                Australia has a BIG part to play in that development of the 3rd world.

                Yes we need a solid reliable approach to the Australia’s power supplies, NOT one rule by idiotic non-science, massive subsidies and taxes, and carbon hatred.

                The RET must be removed if this is to happen.

                61

              • #
                AndyG55

                the relative mix SHOULD NOT be one where coal power has to pay through the nose for the unreliability of wind and solar.

                There should be a completely open and transparent playing field.

                But in that case, wind and solar would never exist.

                60

              • #

                Why be sending mountains of coal offshore to fund and manufacture dinky, perishable hardware (classed under “renewables” as if it had something in common with dams) when we can just cook the lovely stuff here? And what’s this “mix” they love to plug? Mostly a lot of antique contraptions from the last century getting in the way of the gear that worked last century and works now. The phony new is killing the new.

                Not only does the boat trip fail to sanctify the coal and make it carbon neutral, it just turns coal into money, which is okay. Just okay. In a desperate kind of way. That may appeal to neo-liberals. But sure, let’s flog off some of our lovely Permian. Spread the joy and make a dollar.

                However a paleo-con like me loves it when Australian coal is turned into Australian work, Australian enterprise, Australian production and Australian well-being. Then comes the money. (How dinosaur is that!)

                I mean, you do realise that Big Oil and Big Green and hand-in-hand on destroying our primary resource. The good ol’ boys and sheiks siding with the green carpetbaggers and scarf-in-summer set! How much fun it would be to watch their faces as those new HELE plants come on line.

                70

              • #

                mosomoso says re ol’ King Coal…

                ‘a paleo-con like me loves it when Australian coal is turned into Australian work, Australian enterprise, Australian production and Australian well-being. Then comes the money. (How dinosaur is that!)’

                Just so. Let us not forget, though Big Bro’ ’1984′ wishes it confined to the dustbin of history, that it was liberty and coal what released serfs from slavery and lo-o-ng winter misery. ‘Mirie it is while sumer ilast.’ Big Bro, (UN, EU, Soros et Big Al) who wish for a New World Order, run by ‘guess who’ know how bring about Plato’s Utopia, what’s new! Taking the cits back to Feudalism, weakness and compliance, that’s the way to do it.

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDwCLuA-llY

                70

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Oh My God. I quote the head of the minerals council. Those are his words, but you underachievers try to tar me with the CCS brush. Read, try to comprehend.

                17

              • #
                AndyG55

                Only person achieving nothing here is YOU, pftuz.

                Do you deny that you were shilling for CCS several posts ago?

                Have you changed your mind ?

                Or are you just LYING again.

                41

              • #

                You can’t keep a job in back of a junkyard these days without uttering good green intentions. People will go on mining and they will go on uttering good green intentions. Basically, it’s all about being nice to the green sharks in hopes they eat you last.

                If I was the head of a mining council I would measure every word to stay in agreement with government and the dominant green religion, knowing full well that mining and consumption of its products will go on regardless, and that green waste and plunder will go on regardless. The judge in the Rocky Hill case will go on driving, flying and depending on coal power. He might even take an Airbus to Paris, where planets get saved between long dinner courses.

                It’s a matter of avoiding damage, not provoking the temple priests and the Luciferian media so that more useless burdens are laid on production. Refusing the Rocky Hill mine on conservation grounds may well be the right thing. (And mining Bylong Valley? Really? Are we that desperate?) We won’t mine less because of Big Green. Bills to pay. We’ll mine less when there’s an economic crunch for Asia.

                Nope. This is about reducing domestic consumption of coal, in the full knowledge that the alternatives are feeble, expensive and proven to be white elephants before the first stake goes in the ground.

                The blackouts, industrial closures, supply uncertainty, soaring bills and energy poverty are not unfortunate results. They are clearly goals.

                50

              • #

                Peter Fitzroy mentions this:

                ….. but you underachievers try to tar me with the CCS brush. Read, try to comprehend.

                Wait ’til you see these numbers on Carbon Capture and Storage (dated July 2015)

                Peter Fitzroy, back at ya! Read, try to comprehend.

                Tony.

                40

    • #
      AndyG55

      Come on pfutz, what scientifically provable impact will “not” mining Rocky Hill have on the climate.

      The answer is absolutely NONE.

      This is a POLITICAL decision, not a climate based one, no matter what words were used.

      91

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Ironically the far left ABC have not reported on this story yet .

        40

      • #
        Greg in NZ

        https://teara.govt.nz/en/photograph/4880/queenstown-floods

        “During the Central Otago floods of September and October 1878, not only the rivers but also the large lakes rose rapidly. Lake Wakatipu spilled into Queenstown, flooding the lower-lying parts.” Includes pics of the 1878 flood, the 1999 flood, and more. There was also a major flood in 1862 which swept away hundreds of gold miners working the Shotover River canyon. See – it’s the mining wot done it! And those stinky, polluting, horse-and-buggy vehicles…

        100

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Not political AndyG55, it is a legal decision. Remember we separate state from law and both from the church

        16

        • #
          AndyG55

          I asked a question

          Why do you avoid answering.. are you a coward ???

          “what scientifically provable impact will “not” mining Rocky Hill have on the climate.”

          41

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            asking to prove a negative? Only a tool would suggest that

            24

            • #
              AndyG55

              Comprehension skill lacking again, pfutz??

              How much will “not” mining Rocky Hill affect the climate?

              How much WILL mining Rocky Hill affect the climate?

              Answer either one.

              Or avoid answering, yet again, hey pfutz.

              —-

              Any empirical evidence of warming by increased atmospheric CO2 yet?

              Any empirical evidence that CO2 has any affect on climate at all ?

              Come on, or are you admitting that the activist judge made a ruling purely on the political religion of carbon-hatred.

              41

            • #
              AndyG55

              Not asking to you prove a negative, and opposite perhaps.

              The judge clearly said that mining Rocky Hill would affect the climate.

              “Preston explicitly cited the project’s potential impact on climate change”

              Well, what scientifically provable impact would mining Rocky Hill have?

              From there you can figure out the impact of “not” minin Rocky Hill.

              Come on.. and BRING EVIDENCE.. not models.

              41

      • #
        AndyG55

        NO, it was a political decision by an activist judge.

        He made no consideration of the fact that there is zero scientific evidence backing the “climate change” farce.

        He just took the politically correct activist meme as being the truth.

        Climate Change is a political agenda.. it was a politically based decision.

        There was no need to bring it into the decision at all.

        He has NOT separated himself from the AGW religion, just as you cannot.

        Blind belief… blind justice.

        61

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Andy your bias is showing.

          24

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Youd should appeal then andy, I’m sure the losing legal team will be all ears.

          24

          • #
            AndyG55

            Glad to see you agree that it was a political decision.

            You KNOW, just like everyone else knows, there is absolutely no evidence that mining Rocky Hill would have changed the climate in any way whatsoever.

            If you think it would have, then please describe how, and please base your answer on actual empirical science, not models.

            I bet you can’t

            And I bet the judge can’t either.

            So why did the judge use it in his decision except for political/activist purposes?

            41

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Nope, Nope, Nope. The judge had to weigh the evidence presented to him. Your suggestion of bias is completely out of bounds. If what you say is true, and it is not, then the losing legal team would have been shouting that from the rooftops. But what do we get -”we are disappointed” . Again – offer your keen mind, I’m sure you’ll be on a nice fat retainer in no time.

              14

              • #
                AndyG55

                No-one presented any REAL evidence that mining Rocky Hill would affect the climate.

                If you think they did. then please PRESENT THAT EVIDENCE

                You know you CAN’T, you KNOW it doesn’t exist…..

                … that is why you are running around like a demented chook in manic evasion.

                In what way would mining Rocky Hill affect the climate.

                It must be in the trial notes somewhere, with actual evidence.. SURELY !!

                PUT UP or remain as always, an evidence-free brain-washed empty vassal.

                31

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                How do you support this statement “No-one presented any REAL evidence that mining Rocky Hill would affect the climate” . when the judgement was that GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions of the coal mine and its coal product will increase global total concentrations of GHGs at a time when what is now urgently needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep decrease in GHG emissions. These dire consequences should be avoided. Obviously there was evidence.

                13

              • #
                robert rosicka

                I get the amenity argument and I get the other concerns but this decision about including climate change concerns means he is happy enough to make a decision based on green ideology and blind faith .
                No evidence required to convict , just assumptions .

                31

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                I tried to make the point earlier. Science plays only a small role in a legal debate. In legal terms it is all about weighing the evidence. In this particular case it appears that the evidence was not that this particular project will produce x amount of greenhouse gasses, but that Australia was legally committed to a target for said gasses, and this project would place that legal commitment into jeopardy. I think the judge was persuaded by that argument, but I am no expert.

                24

              • #
                robert rosicka

                The evidence by Stefan was contradicted today by his colleague from the ANU ,there is no emergency here and trying to mitigate something or prevent something that may or may not happen is just plain ridiculous and shouldn’t have been added to his ruling .
                Also there’s the matter of impartiality and that judge shouldn’t have heard that case .

                41

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘Science plays only a small role in a legal debate.’

                Yeah, Justice Preston agrees with the Klimatariat.

                “The construction and operation of the mine, and the transportation and combustion of the coal from the mine, will result in the emission of greenhouse gases, which will contribute to climate change,” Justice Preston said in his judgement.’

                Guardian

                I support the court ruling on the grounds that its good agricultural land.

                40

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yet again , cowardly running away from the simple question

                “In what way would mining Rocky Hill affect the climate.”

                The judge made his decision on scientifically unsupportable non-evidence.

                End of story.

                41

              • #
                AndyG55

                “In this particular case it appears that the evidence was not that this particular project will produce x amount of greenhouse gasses, but that Australia was legally committed to a target for said gasses”

                Great to see you FINALLY admitting that it was a political decision.

                Take a faceplant, pfutz :-)

                41

              • #
                AndyG55

                “but that Australia was legally committed to a target for said gasses””

                This coal was for the overseas market, coking coal (which we now use very little of)

                It would not have affected any Australian emission targets.

                You are WRONG, as always.

                41

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      ..the land and environment court..sound like puppets for the climate agenda movement. Totally hijacked of course.

      60

  • #
    Robber

    Nearly screamed at the radio when I heard an 11 year old was reported protesting outside Bill Shorten’s office demanding more be done about climate change, including stopping all coal use immediately. Is there any hope for our society when kids are brainwashed in primary school? I attended a grandparent’s day at school and saw one project about global warming. I asked did they know what the earth’s average temperature was and how much warming had occurred – they had no idea how cool the planet is or how a 1 degree increase could be catastrophic.
    Here’s an excellent video “Basic Physics at NASA, Pulling Back the Curtain on Junk Science”, that should be played in every school with critiques invited. Should also be shown to Mr Shorten, but I don’t think he cares about anything except getting into power at any cost.

    120

  • #
    Ubique

    We wouldn’t be so concerned were the BoM’s errors in forecasting evenly split plus and minus of outcomes. It’s a different matter when their forecasting errors are almost invariably are on the hotter and dryer side. This is clear evidence of a dud model and/or AGW bias.

    90

  • #
    Geoff Derrick

    Here is a little more on the Wivenhoe Dam discussion, taken from my notes and photos of the time, and with support of Ian Chalmers (now passed), who was an engineer on the original Wivenhoe construction project. Try not to confuse percentage full levels with dam heights in metres. The dam has a water supply level of 100%, as baseline. Flood storage added to this takes it up to 224%. Actual dam volume at peak got to 196% capacity.

    In terms of dam heights, full supply level (100%) is given as 67m. The first fuse plug is set to trigger at 75.7m. On Tuesday 11th January the dam was at 74.97m, only 73cm BELOW the fuse plug trigger height. This of course panicked the dam operators, who had been understaffed over the weekend of Jan 8-9, 2011, and resulted in the massive release of 645,000ML on the Tuesday 11th Jan, which was the main cause of the Brisbane flood 36 hours later. They failed to release sufficient water in the previous week (say 4th to 9th January) which would have avoided having to make the catastrophic release on Tuesday 11th Jan.

    61

  • #
    pattoh

    The question you have to ask is “would you take a meteorologist or an economist to the races?”.

    I guess the BoM leases its super computer out to the RBA when it is not mining BitCoin.

    30

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Pushing the Socialist barrow it seems…..?

    https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/abolish-billionaires-the-world-would-be-better-off-without-them-20190207-p50wbd.html

    “The case against billionairedom

    I like to use this column to explore maximalist policy visions — positions we might aspire to over time rather than push through tomorrow. Abolishing billionaires might not sound like a practical idea, but if you think about it as a long-term goal in light of today’s deepest economic ills, it feels anything but radical.

    Instead, banishing billionaires — seeking to cut their economic power, working to reduce their political power and attempting to question their social status — is a pithy, perfectly encapsulated vision for surviving the digital future.

    Billionaire abolishment could take many forms. It could mean preventing people from keeping more than a billion in booty, but more likely it would mean higher marginal taxes on income, wealth and estates for billionaires and people on the way to becoming billionaires.”

    20

  • #
    WXcycles

    Despite the generally hopeless seasonal long-range predictions the BOM warnings were pretty good this time, I saw nothing that over or under stated things or just plain got it wrong.

    Thankfully they didn’t do their usual trick and declare it a 35 knot ‘tropical cyclone’, which is the normal fare from BOM. But they still may, within the coming week. I’m betting they will as I’ve learned from monitoring them for years that the clowns who do these BOM cyclone declarations (and constantly get it totally wrong) apparently can’t help themselves. They will declare almost any tropical low with a minor open swirl to be a raging category-3. They are hopeless, incompetent dishonest morons, IMHO.

    But individuals claiming they did not get the high rainfall which BOM had predicted on a certain day are simply unrealistic and unreasonable, all forecasting and rain model output is probabilistic for goodness sake. The point is the conditions existed for the rainfall to occur at very high rates (and they did, and it did), which is the point of the prior warnings for the stated periods and locations.

    I posted the official local Townsville BOM rainfall observations further above which total 1421.4 mm, in 13 days. The only inaccuracy I saw during this event was that all media repeatedly quoted BOM sources claiming that much more rain had fallen on Townsville (at that time) than what the official BOM instrument at Townsville airport had recorded (by several hundred mm in fact).

    This seemed to be related to statements made at the Premier”s news conference(s) by a BOM spokesperson. Who appeared to be dishonestly including data for the whole of the Summer wet season period to date in Townsville, instead of just for this particular rainfall event, which began on the 27th Jan, 2019. Providing wrong or inflated information like that to the media is not acceptable, as the actual figures were sufficiently serious, so why hype it to the media and have them reporting nonsense?

    BOM spokespeople have no excuses at all for getting the numbers wrong, accidentally, or deceptively. It’s a serious failing when that occurs within the context of a media conference – clean up your act please BOM.

    But the BOM severe-weather and flooding warning people did a very good job this time around IMHO – credit where it’s due. Good job.

    (Now what are you all going to do about that dead-wood who do your cyclone warnings? They’re doing serious harm to BOM’s national and international reputation each year that these people remain in place.)

    As I write this, the heavy rain band has finally just lifted north off the Townsville area, as the low starts to go out to sea, this afternoon. We may get some more showers but this should be the end of the heavy rainfall on the city, from here.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDR733.loop.shtml#skip

    51

  • #
    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Great article, but i cant pronounce those names..”Qassiarsuk, Greenland.” ;)

      40

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      The odd thing is that the lead author is a global warmist..
      And her explanation of Greenland being warmer in the time of Viking settlement, is that it was a ‘local’ warming not a global one.

      But the evidence is already in that the Medieval period saw 4-500 years of global warming when the planet was warmer than today..And this research about Grenland is just one more bit of evidence of that warming

      30

  • #
    King Geo

    “GC” has indeed started – check the latest Weatherbell GT Map – the GT Anomaly is now +0.166 degrees C. This is the lowest GT I can recall since 2014. Well renowned meteorologist David Dilley some years back predicted that GC would really take hold in 2019 onwards, and wait for it, persist until ~ 2150. But western nations have turned a blind eye to GC because the IPCC says it is not possible. As a result the western nation decision makers have been brainwashed by this “AGW Ideology” even though Earth has not even gone close to experiencing the IPCC’s lowest case warming rate of 0.2 degree rise per decade in the past few decades. The only warming has been brief GT spikes during strong El Nino events e.g. 1997/1998, 2010 & 2015/2016. Clearly rising CO2 has played no role in controlling GT’s – but us skeptics know that – the IPCC and its religious disciples have the “cart before the horse”. In short term periods the Sun is the main driver of Earths’s GT, and during longer time periods there are additional parameters, Lunar/Solar Precession & Milankovitch Cycles.

    But don’t worry “Judgement Day” is nigh – the “Warmists” are going to have a lot of trouble explaining the ravages of a prolonged period of GC, especially in Canada & northern Eurasia where the impact of GC will be most severe e.g. loss of cereal crops etc.

    81

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    New comments on icecap
    “Wake up young people”
    ‘…Europe has been the first globalization – one world government and anti fossil fuel experiment.’
    ‘…In Spain, 2.2 jobs were lost for every green job created and only 1 in 10 green job was permanent. In Italy it was 3.4 jobs lost for every temporary green job, ..’
    etc.

    60

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Totally OT but the far left ABC reports on socialism and Trump , Trump bad , Socialism good .

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-08/donald-trump-wants-socialism-to-be-2020s-dirty-word/10793734

    10

  • #
    pat

    TWEET: ABC Brisbane
    Dry, dusty outback to inland sea

    20

  • #
    BigToeHurts

    I do not understand the criticism of the B.O.M. I have found their reporting of the days weather on the evening news to be almost 100% accurate.

    40

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Count yourself lucky if that’s true , the forward forecast for Townsville and surrounds was the opposite of what they received .

      10

      • #
        BigToeHurts

        Sorry,I should have been more specific. I was referring to the reporting of the weather we had that day, not the forward forecast.

        00

        • #
          Bill in Oz

          Big ToeHurts ( ? ) It’s easy to report what is happening. BOM staff can look out the window and see the rain falling and the radar will tell them more.

          But BOM has decided to be the Australian future Global Warming expert agency. and is consistently stuffing up in that role. And using fake news.

          00

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Weather and climate used to be different things. Now, the capture of weather by climate change advocates is all but complete.’

    Lloyd / Oz

    20

Leave a Reply to WXcycles Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>