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

Figure this: Andy Pitman says “we don’t understand what causes droughts” but “the indirect link is clear”!

Back in August I posted the extraordinary first quotes from Prof Andy Pitman that there was no link between climate change and drought.

Professor Andy Pitman

Prof Andy Pitman, Climate Modeler, UNSW

The news about droughts was banal and obvious, because more water evaporates in a warmer world, and therefore, more rain falls — how could it be any other way? What goes up, must come down. But that quote was very important because it had never been stated so unequivocally by a high ranking believer and modeler. (Thanks to Jim Sternhill for spotting this incendiary and unwittingly honest quote.) Since being posted here, those quotes have been picked up by Maurice Newman, Alan Jones, then Chris Kenny (The Australian editor) and Andrew Bolt — which means the Pitman-drought-admission has become a major headache for the climate machine. Hence, they had to come up with some fogging excuse to muddy up the clarity, and here it is. Pitman forgot one word.

Prof Andy Pitman now says that he meant to say there was no direct link:

Barry said this “clarification” said Pitman had “left out a crucial word”: that “there is no direct link between climate change and drought”.

“But does global warming lead to changes in rainfall patterns that can lead to drought? Yes. This indirect link is clear … In some regions, this increases the risk of drought, in other regions it decreases the risk.”

As recoveries go, this rates “Good try, but no banana”. Adding just one word leaves open the vague-fortune-teller-type possibility that our car exhausts can indirectly cause droughts — but none of the Global Climate Models can predict regional rainfall reliably, or even unreliably. They can’t even manage to predict the plus or minus sign in precipitation trends. GCM’s are officially up there with coin tosses. So it is a bit (as in, totally) misleading of Pitman to say the indirect link is clear. There’s no definitive evidence that changing CO2 levels has any measurable effect on rainfall patterns at all — if there was, the modelers might have some clue of which regions would get wetter and which wouldn’t, instead of being completely skillless on precipitation. (see Anagnostopolous, 2010 for starters).

Lets not forget what Andy Pitman also said in June:

“…the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts.”

Yes, exactly. That’s rather a bomb on the idea that anything might “be clear”. Apparently, even though the forces that drive droughts are a mystery to climate scientists, they “know” that CO2 has a connection somehow, someway. Lo, and Neptune is travelling through the constellation Pisces — causing carp to rain on the GCMs. Expect a mysterious man to steal your heart next month, or perhaps just part of your wallet through your electricity bill.

Meanwhile for people born under The Sun, UNSW is stealing part our inheritance, our tax and sanity with fake science. Enough is enough.

Since we’re doing the Pitman flashback — let’s remember how damning all those original words were.

From Prof Andy Pitman:

  1. we don’t understand what causes droughts.”
  2. “we don’t know what stops a drought”.
  3. “there is no link between climate change and drought.”
  4. “there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.”
  5.  ”there’s no trend in data…. There is no drying trend. … “no trend in the last hundred years

We’re watching palm-reading type analysis:

The vague allusion to a possible indirect mechanism was all that was needed by Paul Barry on ABC MediaWatch to accuse Bolt of omitting key information:

Paul Barry:

So, you have left out two crucial facts. The first is that there IS a drying trend over the last twenty years. The second is that there is a long-term drying trend in some regions and not in others.

Andrew Bolt called it pathetic deceptive and evasive, pointing out he had put the full quotes on his blog, and that falling rainfall in the last twenty years was irrelevant if there was no trend in the last 100 years, and that even Andy Pitman said that these changes in trends show “how variable Australian rainfall is”.

Today Andrew Bolt has a slide from a Pitman presentation.

In the words of Andy Pitman:

“Current science cannot tell us of the sign of the change in future drought.”

 

Paul Barry has no idea how bad the rainfall predictions are — he’s a lamb to the slaughter. He accuses Bolt of hyping up the Pitman speech:

Paul Barry: Note the emphasis on “admits”, as if he’s known it all along and finally fessed up.

But here’s the thing, that’s absolutely true.  The modelers have known all along. A warmer world means more rain.

And all the “evidence” Paul Barry cites are just guesstimates that come from a simulated planet in a galaxy far far away:

Also, if you look at the published research — as Kenny, Jones and Bolt could easily have done — you’ll find any number of climate scientists concluding that global warming is having an effect.

The recent drought in South Africa, for example, in which Cape Town nearly ran out of water, was made three times more likely by climate change, according to researchers led by Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute.

And studies by different researchers of 45 droughts around the world — mapped here by UK website Carbon Brief — have found that 30 were made worse or more likely by human-induced climate change.

So fake evidence from fake planets. And Paul Barry, master journalist of journalists, could have “looked” at the published research too, just as easily as he says Kenny, Bolt, and Jones could have. Obviously he didn’t. Or he could have just googled and found joannenova.com.au and I would have explained for free just how meaningless those modeled calculations of “percentage chances” are when they come from skillless models that even the modelers admit ” don’t understand what causes droughts.”

Might as well ask as astrologer how many droughts were caused by your  air conditioner. It’s be better national policy than asking UNSW – it’d have just as much chance of success but be a lot cheaper.

I’ve been pointing out for years how dismal climate modelers are with rainfall, quite possibly because they don’t include solar spectral, magnetic or solar wind variation and solar cycles seem to be linked to rainfall, streamflow, jetstreams, floods and droughts:

REFERENCE

[1] Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]

Professor Andy Pitman, (2019) Presentation — The SEI forum: Adapting Climate Science for Business, Wednesday 19 June, 2019, Sydney Environment Institute (SEI), University of Sydney.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.9/10 (50 votes cast)
Figure this: Andy Pitman says "we don't understand what causes droughts" but "the indirect link is clear"!, 9.9 out of 10 based on 50 ratings

188 comments to Figure this: Andy Pitman says “we don’t understand what causes droughts” but “the indirect link is clear”!

  • #
    Another Ian

    ” come from a simulated planet in a galaxy far far away”

    I was listening to the radio recently and a song came on which seemed to have the solution to this

    It is Camelot they’re modelling!

    Firstly there is a song about perfect weather.

    Secondly there is “If I ruled the world”

    70

  • #
    David Wojick

    Chaotic systems like weather oscillate between rain and not rain for no discernible reason. There is thus no detectable cause for droughts or floods. They just happen from time to time and place to place.

    Changing the total energy of the system will not change this unpredictable pattern in predictable ways. But the modelers studiously ignore this chaotic feature because there is no money in unpredictability. Moreover, CO2 has nothing to do with it.

    120

    • #
      David Wojick

      My favorite chaos joke. From the old farmer and the stranger series of jokes.

      The stranger asks the farmer “Think it will rain?” The farmer replies “It always has.”

      That is the limit to chaotic predictability. Chaos is actually a powerful form of stability, but the price is intrinsic unpredictability. It will rain. We just can’t know when or how much.

      120

      • #
        glen Michel

        Well, if there’s no cloud. it won’t rain. Drought is the result of extended periods of no cloud/rain. All things being natural. Anyway I thought Pitman’s lack of explanation strange given that he is aware of the climatic drivers such as ENSO and IOD phases. After all, paleoclimatologists have been studying past droughts for some time.

        51

  • #
    Michael

    I disagree with Pitman. I have no faith in climate models and believe we are having no discernible effect on global climate. Nonetheless I think he was honestly reflecting the state of his art and, in particular, the lack of skill in climate models. He should be respected, not used as a political plaything.

    72

    • #

      I agree that Pitman was being honest in his speech in June. Disarmingly so. But how honest is he being now about the accuracy of models on rainfall? He’s being careful with his word selection, but we pay him for more than tip toeing within a spin-loaded politico-science minefield. We need the whole truth and nothing but the truth all the time.

      Australians are being told repeatedly that we are causing droughts and need to spend billions on wind and solar and on Snowy Mt 2.0 storage, and we need to prepare for more droughts. Money is being taken from jobs, schools and hospitals to fruitlessly prevent something it has no chance of success on.

      Right now, Australia needs expert professors to step up and correct the meaningless and incorrect claims. We need the kind of profs who would leave no stone unturned to make sure Australians knew that there was no scientific basis to the claims that our CO2 emissions cause droughts. Where are they?

      340

      • #
        Michael Fry

        That’s what Pitman was saying Jo. I guess the difference of opinion is over the “no stone unturned” stuff. Pitman is not the problem, the media is.

        64

      • #
        Michael Fry

        Oh, by the way, I am a retired Professor of the sciences (PhD Science (Sydney)) who is not afraid to stand up, because I am retired.

        70

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Well then, stand up man.

          Say it.

          Loudly.

          80

          • #
            glen Michel

            Who would listen? The media need more alarm. More Chicken little stuff. Keep the people fed on fear.

            61

            • #
              Greg in NZ

              I’m glad someone mentioned chickens:

              “A group of about 20 has gathered outside the Henderson Tegel factory to ‘bear witness’ to truckloads of birds in their last moments of life. They’re part of the Save Moment, a global network of groups that hold these events, usually outside slaughterhouses.

              “‘The primary purpose is to bear witness to these animals and to recognise them as individuals. When people go to the supermarket and see chicken, they tend to think of it as a product and not as an individual. We’re here to break that divide’”.

              https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/401507/the-new-zealanders-holding-vigils-for-chickens

              Climate Justice for chooks? As a very naughty boy once said: You are all individuals

              30

        • #
          cohenite

          There’s the problem right there; lot’s of examples of scientists who did speak against alarmism and got fired for their troubles. Start with Peter Ridd and work backwards.

          50

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        Money is being taken from jobs, schools and hospitals to fruitlessly prevent something it has no chance of success on.

        But that is the point. If they could predict and did in fact know the cause, they might be able to fix it. If it is fixed, there goes their reason to demand more money to do more research into what they cannot and do not understand. In perpetuity!

        The politicians like the failure because they get to say they need more power to spend more money on failures to save the planet. Then fail to fix the problem and demand still more power and money to save the planet. In perpetuity!

        Yet all we do is complain rather than remove the real causes of problems. In perpetuity!

        What do we get from it? What is our payoff? A reason to complain. In perpetuity!

        I am starting to think we deserve what we are getting. We vote the politicians into office and continue to support academia that is pushing the anti-scientific crap upon us. In perpetuity!

        It is now the situation where our votes are all but meaningless and our complaints are ignored. It is our fault for allowing it to happen. What are we going to do about it? Complain in perpetuity?

        No because the situation is unsustainable. Our technological civilization cannot withstand the flood of irrationality and will collapse. Then, as the worst economist who ever lived said, “In the long run we are all dead.”

        70

        • #
          Another Ian

          “The politicians like the failure because they get to say they need more power to spend more money on failures to save the planet. ”

          As a bloke in Brasil years ago said resignedly about any chance of “fixing drought”

          30

      • #
        Bill Capron

        Years ago I started reading your blog because you agreed with me, but I thought it was at first the superficial-ness of political opposition or religious heresy; but I read you every day, for what may be five-plus years, and I am impressed with your insightfulness, your restraint, your knowledge … you have become more expert with time. I read twenty plus articles a day on the subject, but you are always the first.

        180

      • #
        Ian Wilson

        Jo Nova,

        You place up a slide from Pitman’s talk which asserts that:

        “Recent thinking is that Australia is by “default” in drought, broken by major rainfall events. New research will focus on whether we can identify causes these major rainfall events.”

        For years now, I have been desperately trying to point out that we already know one of these causes for major rainfall events – at least for the State of Victoria!

        https://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2018/12/what-is-australian-bureau-of.html
        What is the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Trying to Hide?

        I have posted two graphs which (I believe) conclusively show that 18.6-year Lunar Draconic tides produce these major rainfall events in Victoria.

        Here they are, in case someone has missed them.

        https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PZlZOTa5rgA/XBGhHwAxsdI/AAAAAAAABX8/H5KJS8LmcdczoGHHrHIZUTbC1tcqaZjKACLcBGAs/s1600/rranom.vic.0112.19917.png

        https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MdYK0M033mo/XBGiJXU2HQI/AAAAAAAABYE/L-ImxNbZ6CMuLGLkhmXrKrH4VtGC49JHACLcBGAs/s1600/Lunar_Victoria.jpg

        The second is an auto-correlation of the excess Victorian rainfall events (i.e. the positive anomalies only) and even blind-Freddy can clearly see
        that there is a repetitive pattern in the rainfall amounts every:

        18.6 years
        18.6 + 18.6 = 37.2 years
        18.6 + 18.6 + 18.6 = 55.8 years

        There is even a 4-year repetition pattern that matches the quasi four-year alignment pattern between the lunar Spring Tides and the seasons!

        Why aren’t we using these graphs to get the Government, media and the scientific establishment to admit that factors other than CO2 can play a role in influencing Australia’s major rainfall events?

        I am at the stage where I am about to go down to my local mental asylum and check-in for an extended stay. Not only is the scientific community ignoring this no-brainer result but I am starting to believe that it is being totally ignored by the skeptic community as well.

        What do I have to do to get people’s attention – I am at my wit’s end!!!

        P.S. I have also posted a rational mathematical argument that highlights a possible reason for the 18.6-year lunar tidal cycle

        https://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2012/06/simple-model-for-186-year-atmospheric.html

        100

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          It was going really well until this;

          “but I am starting to believe that it is being totally ignored by the skeptic community as well.”

          KK

          40

          • #
            el gordo

            Ian is correct, over at Watts or Climate Etc they ignore his lunar theory and the same happens here. But he is in good company, even Scafetta, Evans and Archibald have had to endure ridicule from sceptics.

            Mathematicians have a problem communicating.

            30

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              “Ian is correct,”

              My comment was intended to show that I found good potential and logic in his observation.

              Then, when he criticized the blog for something or other about publicity, I became uncomfortable at that criticism.

              KK

              10

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘I found good potential and logic in his observation.’

                Do you accept we’ll see a strong La Nina starting in late 2020?

                10

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                I’m asked;

                “Do you accept we’ll see a strong La Nina starting in late 2020?”

                My answer; I don’t know. Have not gone past the basics of convection in atmosphere and oceans so that’s for the experts.

                My intuition is that if the moon can move the oceans to create the tidal flux then it can also move the atmosphere. Just how that shows up is the question given thermodynamics at ground level and interaction with topography.

                KK

                40

              • #
                el gordo

                The moon might be a bit player, Ian needs to come here and argue his case, otherwise in my mind the solar influence has greater impact.

                It would be nice if he could put up a graph which cycles back to the time of Christ, then we could look forward and test the theory.

                20

              • #
                Ian Wilson

                el Gordo,

                I’ll go one better. I have published a paper in a peer-reviewed journal that goes back 2,264 years.

                A Luni-Solar Connection to Weather and Climate I: Centennial Times Scales
                Ian Robert George Wilson and Nikolay S Sidorenkov

                Wilson and Sidorenkov, J Earth Sci Clim Change 2018, 9:1, p. 446

                https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-lunisolar-connection-to-weather-and-climate-i-centennial-times-scales-2157-7617-1000446.pdf

                30

              • #
                el gordo

                Ian thanks for venturing back, but I’ll need a temperature graph to the time of Christ, otherwise I can’t sell it.

                00

          • #
            Ian Wilson

            Kalm Kieth,

            What I have said is 100 % true. The Skeptic community is almost totally ignoring this specific result.

            People here (and at other skeptic sites) seem to want an all-encompassing climate theory that explains every conceivable aspect of climate change. No one has a theory that does that.

            What I am doing here with my top post is not presenting a final climate theory that explains everything. It simply stating that I have some new research which sheds light on the following statement by Pitman:

            “Recent thinking is that Australia is by “default” in drought, broken by major rainfall events. New research will focus on whether we can identify causes these major rainfall events.”

            I have a piece of observational evidence that supports the claim that something related to lunar tides is responsible for major rainfall events in the total rainfall for the State of Victoria.

            This observational evidence either stands or falls on its own merits. I am challenging anyone to explain to me why this observational evidence is wrong! As far as I can tell, any reasonable person would be forced to admit that this observational evidence presents a water-tight case for a lunar tidal explanation.

            Please, please, please… will you stop looking for the magic bullet that will explain everything about climate change. All that I ask is that you recognize the fundamental pieces of observational evidence that support the contention that CO2 is not the sole cause of climate change.

            21

        • #
          Bill in Oz

          Ian, you claim to have found a pattern
          In the cycles of wet years versus dry in Victoria.
          Some queries for you :
          1; What do you mean by “Victoria” The climate of East Gippsland is vastly different to the Malle or Wimmera. I used to live in East Gippsland and can remember times when there were heavy rain & floods there while the West remained dry.

          2: I cannot see any explanation by you of why this pattern exists. I mention outlining it mathematically, but frankly ‘Mathematics’ is not an explanation..Just for 99.9% of us, scribbles on paper or a computer screen.
          if you wish to have your claim accepted and discussed, you need to explain it in a NON mathematical way.

          3: I now live in South Australia. Do you see a similar 18.6 years cycle in SA’s dry/flood cycle ?

          50

          • #
            Ian Wilson

            Bill of OZ,

            1. It is the total annual rainfall anomaly for the whole of Victoria. Go to this BOM site to see how it calculated.

            http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Drranom%26area%3Dvic%26season%3D0112%26ave_yr%3D0

            2. Let me boil it down to a few dot points.

            * The Australian climate is dominated by the seasonal (solar driven) north-south movement of Southern Sub-Tropical High-Pressure Ridge.

            * In winter, the peak of this ridge of high pressure is located at ~ 30 S latitude. This allows the band of low pressure to the south of Australia to bring cold fronts and rain.

            * In Summer, the peak of this ridge of high pressure is located at ~ 40 S latitude. This allows the band of low pressure to the north of Australia to bring the Monsoon.

            * You can remove the (dominant) solar-driven component of the North-South movement of the Sub-Tropical high-pressure ridge by investigating the mean latitude of its peak during the summer months of December, January and February. This allows you to see the small contribution to the variation in latitude of its peak caused by the 18.6-year lunar tidal cycle. This variation should be of the order of 1 degree in latitude [that's what the mathematics shows]. [This latitudinal variation has only been shown to exist along the east coast of Australia, at this point.]

            * When you do, you find that, low and behold, just as expected, there is a STRONG 9.3-year cycle in the peak latitude [(18.6-year/2) = 9.3-year] of the peak of the sub-tropical high=pressure ridge, that is of the order of 1.0 degree in latitude.

            * In addition, if you look for slowly moving patterns in the variation in the strength of high-pressure with longitude you find that are distinct coherent wave patterns on the southern side of the subtropical high-pressure ridge that is moving around the Earth once every 18.6 years. These wave-like patterns in the atmospheric high pressure are matched by commensurate moving patterns in the SST anomalies.

            * Hence, you have a proven lunar influence upon the mean latitude and longitude of the belt of high-pressure cells over Eastern Australia which are known to influence the levels of rainfall over these regions.

            3. The far SE corner of SA probably shows a similar rainfall pattern as Victoria. However, as you move further west in longitude, the wind speeds along the southern side of the subtropical high-pressure ridge start to play a more important role compared to the ridge’s peak latitude. This introduces an 11-year solar component to the rainfall and temperatures in SA that is not as strong as in Victoria.

            30

          • #
            Ian Wilson

            Bill of Oz, In danger of belaying a point, here is an extra snippet that might help.

            Have you ever wondered why, every four to five years, the high-pressure cells that drift from west to east across Australia start to slow down and stop, producing blocking highs that are stuck in the Tasman Sea or that send a blocking ridge up the East coast of SE Australia? This is the effect of the long-term lunar tides.

            20

            • #
              Bill in Oz

              Ian thanks for both your comments.
              Well worth thinking about !
              And well worth following up.

              A further question :
              How do the deep lows that erratically
              Cycle down the East coast of Australia
              Fit into this cycle ?
              They bringing rain and often floods
              Along the East coast
              And even as far West as Bairnsdale
              And the Hills of east Gippsland.

              They seem to develop out of nothing !

              00

              • #
                Ian Wilson

                Bill of Oz,

                There are still far more unknowns than there are knowns when it comes to the details of the regional climate. My guess is that the development of deep lows off the east coast of SE Australia is facilitated by the shift of the semi-permanent high in the Tasman Sea. This semi-permanent high can:

                a) sometimes appear to move eastward towards NZ, OR

                b) weaken as the semi-permanent high of the Great Australian Bight strengthens.

                Either way, this would create the space required for the coastal lows to form.

                My paper discusses why these changes to the semi-permanent high might occur.

                Wilson, I.R.G., Lunar Tides and the Long-Term Variation of the Peak Latitude Anomaly of the Summer Sub-Tropical
                High-Pressure Ridge over Eastern Australia, The Open Atmospheric Science Journal, 2012, 6, 49-60

                http://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOASCJ-6-49

                20

        • #
          Vishnu

          Except 1939 and 1950 doesn’t really fit?

          Do you have enough cycles to get significance?

          But on matters lunar https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/5/4/83

          and https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/7/2/31

          01

          • #
            Ian Wilson

            Vishnu,

            If you look carefully, you will see that superimposed upon the 18.6-year pattern is a very distinct 4.0-year cycle that chops up the peak in rainfall near 1955.
            This 4.0-year pattern reflects the alignment period between the lunar Spring-Tides and the (Solar) seasons.

            4.0 + 4.0 + 3.0 + 4.0 + 4.0 years = 19.0 years

            Which is the Metonic lunar cycle. This the cycle that results if you look at the time it takes for a New/Full Moon to reoccur at the same time in the seasonal calendar.

            The most effective way that the peaks in the strengths of the lunar cycles can influence the rhythmical cycle of the seasons is to be synchronized with those cycles.
            Think about how you help a child build up their swing on the swings in a park. You time your pushing to the swing of the child. By doing so you make them swing higher.

            20

          • #
            Ian Wilson

            Vishnu,

            Thank you for linking me to the two papers by Norman Treloar. His papers are an extraordinary summary of what I have been saying for years.
            Dr. Treloar was a former colleague of mine in the early 2000s when he worked for the CSIRO in Queensland. He moved to Canada around 2007-8(?) to
            further his career. If you forgive the fact that he is a global warming alarmist, he is someone who is willing to think outs side the bo

            20

            • #
              el gordo

              In regards to the blocking highs, I’ll give your hypothesis some thought, but the subtropical ridge was intense since the turn of the century and only lost its intensity in the Austral winter 2017.

              Can your theory explain that?

              10

              • #
                Ian Wilson

                El Gordo,

                There are two variables here. There is the latitude of the peak of the Sub-Tropical High_pressure Ridge and there is the position and strength of semi-permanent highs. So it is a little more complex than just the overall strength.

                10

              • #
              • #
                Ian Wilson

                Thanks again Vishnu for the heads up on this paper.

                They seem to have completely missed the 18.6-year variation in rainfall in Victoria. I wonder why?

                20

              • #
                el gordo

                The subtropical ridge has lost its intensity, a wayward jet stream and blocking highs are the mechanisms in play.

                https://www.weatherzone.com.au/synoptic.jsp?d=0

                Is this caused by a quiet sun?

                10

              • #
                Ian Wilson

                El Gordo and Vishnu,

                Timbal and Drosdosky’s (2013) paper strongly supports the claims that I have been making.

                They find two strong relationships:

                The first is an anti-correlation of the rainfall in SE Australia with the intensity (i.e. strength) of the Southern Sub-Tropical High-Pressure Ridge (SSTHPR). The anti-correlation is strongest between April and November, covering the winter months when SE Australia receives most of its rain. By SE Australia, they mean from the SE corner of SA (from The Eyre Peninsular east to the Victorian border), Southern New South Wales (South of the Latitude of Sydney) and Victoria.

                They show that this anti-correlation is the direct result of a strengthening of the Hadley Circulation with increasing global temperature [between 1900 and 2009]. This has increased the intensity (i.e. strength) of the SSTHPR, raising the atmospheric pressure in SE Australia. The net effect of this has been a slow decrease in rainfall with increasing global temperature in SE Australia.

                The second correlation is an anti-correlation of the rainfall in SE Australia with the position (SSTHPR). The anti-correlation is strongest between May and September, covering the winter months when SE Australia receives most of its rain.

                However, their parameter for position (i.e. STR-P) is positive if there is a southward shift of the SSTHPR.

                Hence, what they have found is, in fact, a correlation of the rainfall in SE Australia with the position of the SSTHPR, provided you define a positive change in position as being more to the north than normal for that time of year.

                This is exactly what you would expect since a northward shift of the SSTHPR compared to its normal position at that time of year would encourage greater rainfall.

                00

            • #
              Vishnu

              Alarmist might be a bit strong but you may know him personally. AGW “belief” can be a spectrum. My colleagues think I’m a full sceptic (don’t tell AndyG)

              20

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor vishy.

                I’m in his dreams, always on his mind….

                So funny. :-)

                30

              • #
                el gordo

                Timbal didn’t see it coming, he thought the subtropical ridge would remain intense because of AGW. I want him to admit that the STR has collapsed and that its a sign of global cooling.

                30

              • #
                el gordo

                Tasmanian tree rings show oscillations which may fit Ian’s hypothesis.

                https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/095968369200200302

                30

              • #
                Ian Wilson

                Vishnu,

                Norman Trealor is great guy who is more than willing to listen to a variety of opinions on climate. However, he is absolutely convinced that once you take out the effects of the lunar tides upon global warming, 100 % of what is left must be due to CO2. No, ifs, ands or buts.

                When I visited him at CSIRO in Toowoomba Australia, we would have to hide in a corner and speak softly about the effects of the lunar tides on climate. I think he was worried that if we were overheard talking about a possible climate driver other than CO2 his reputation would be sullied.

                10

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        ” Where are they?”

        Exactly; they’re hiding behind their pay packets.

        And if Mr. Pitman is a “Climate Modeller”, enough said.

        Modelling can be a highly valuable procedure in some industrial analyses where inputs and outputs can be clearly linked but that is not the case with so called climate modelling which has sought to link atmospheric CO2 levels with “The Weather”.
        The chronic introduction of “renewables” into Australia’s residential and industrial has had two major effects;

        1. Every household in Australia in now paying a $1,000 p.a. surcharge on their power bills, and
        2. Industry in Australia has been decimated by electricity surcharges related to “Climate Change Actions”.

        Heartache aplenty for the peasants but lots of “skimming” by the Elites when aud $6 billion in electricity surcharges is turned over every year.

        But don’t worry, all will be well when Michael Mann arrives at the UNSW next year to take up his sinecure.

        Will that be alongside “Prof” Pitman?

        http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/weekend-unthreaded-282/#comment-2207771

        Australia is now a country so deeply mired in the Renewables “thing” the even businesses that are simply offices are struggling to deal with their power bills.

        Industry left years ago. Australians have been enslaved and damaged by the Climate Change Industry and that fact is no credit to our politicians and universities which participate in the scheme.

        KK

        90

      • #
        Lance

        There are 2 categories.

        Climate related.

        Grid Related.

        Climate related is insufferably politicized. Experts who are qualified, honest, and unencumbered are few.

        Grid related is an easier task. Registered/Licensed Electrical Power Engineers per RPeng/APEA are a different breed. They actually have Licensure. If you want “Truth”, talk to them.

        20

      • #
        Vishnu

        Jo – Pitman said what he said. Pretty clear. But the actual science debate is more complex. I think he’s right in general but not in detail. A few aspects – a fair bit of work (OK GCMs backing up observations) shows changes in Hadley cell which is thought to have affected sub-tropical ridge intensity and perhaps SAM. So some explanation for droughts or more intense droughts in NSW MDB. However – that’s not all of Australia – the post hoc on the SEQ Millenium Drought was put down to multi-decadal variability not AGW. SW WA rainfall decline I’m not sure.

        What is generally said is that warmer temperatures are making drought worse. But temperature only a part of evaporation story – other factors being wind, vapour pressure and radiation. And a few years ago you’ll remember papers on global reductions in evaporation from lower wind – global “stilling”. Although that has now been revisited by the original authors and may have changed or reversed. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL079332

        And of course palaeoclimate supports Pitman for at least longer droughts in the past – perhaps we’re experiencing the Medieval Period again where sub-tropical droughts were worse in a warmer world. Vance et al. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL062447
        Tozer et al. https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/20/1703/2016/
        Coates-Marnane et al. in Moreton Bay cores supports Vance et al. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325250291_A_1500_year_record_of_river_discharge_inferred_from_fluvial-marine_sediments_in_the_Australian_subtropics but perplexingly shows whole centuries different to others.

        And to cap it off – perhaps drought only a feature of transient conditions not at a new equilibrium. So a drier sub-tropics eventually becomes wetter https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0397-9?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201903&sap-outbound-id=E518ED1DDF0D943ABF83471161ABCEADA7FEA088 Yup in the schmodel models too.

        So what am I saying – Pitman’s a smart guy. He knows all this – it’s REALLY complex? But given the variability how would one detect a climate change drought signal arising from the fog of natural variability. Not until it’s too late would shout the alarmists !

        But maybe it’s on the way? https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/10/15/1911130116.short?rss=1

        32

        • #

          get ready for the counter argument that you are little, poor and pathetic.

          01

        • #
          AndyG55

          There no evidence that humans have caused any of the slight changes in the global climate

          There is no evidence it is anything but NATURAL.

          Climate models predict basically every possible change in the climate from one extreme to the other,

          They cover such a HUGE variability, that you can always find one model that is sort of correct for natural weather events.

          Glad Vishy was able to see the MWP had similar climate to now.. probably a bit warmer though.

          “But given the variability how would one detect a climate change drought signal arising from the fog of natural variability

          Vishy finally wakes up to REALITY.. Well done little-vishy.

          Maybe not a stunned mullet !

          41

          • #
            Vishnu

            Yep just keep saying that – mantra repetition is a great science argument.

            02

            • #
              AndyG55

              Says little vishy

              while PRESENTING ZERO EVIDENCE.

              ““But given the variability how would one detect a climate change drought signal arising from the fog of natural variability””

              Do you disagree with Pitman. Vishy?

              12

              • #
                Vishnu

                Partially yes but you wouldn’t expect it to be simple. Some regions have a signature some don’t. Try reading some papers I have cited above and report back.
                Even sceptics must feel for our farmers suffering in extreme drought. What’s missing in all your abuse is an acknowledgement that many researchers are also looking at climate variability and background climate. Maybe droughts will eventually be forecast a year in advance. Wouldn’t that be a prize?

                You’re in such a rush to destroy everything that gold slips through your fingers.

                01

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Some regions have a signature some don’t.

                You mean “NATURAL VARIABILITY.. ok, I can agree with that.

                Certainly isn’t “global” anything is it

                Thanks again for the heads-up

                “Maybe droughts will eventually be forecast a year in advance”

                So you admit they have been only guessing for the last 40 years…

                .. ie they don’t have a clue

                / Vishy — Not quite a stunned mullet.

                10

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘Maybe droughts will eventually be forecast a year in advance. Wouldn’t that be a prize?’

                Indeed it would, so I’m putting my hand up for a back to back La Nina starting in late 2020. Morrison got my memo and is allocating monies to build dams.

                The bad news is that the coming decade will be wet and cool because of a quiet sun.

                10

              • #
                Vishnu

                AndyG “Certainly isn’t “global” anything is it”

                ummm no – dat’s coz dah world is variable – chumpy chump. Put your Mum on.

                00

            • #
              Gee aye

              See. “Little”. One day you will graduate to poor and pathetic.

              02

      • #
        Melbourne Resident

        Has anyone thought about the overall climate in Australia – we were taught that we have climate zones – ie temperate (Victoria); arid – Central SA and NSW; sub-tropical – Qld; and tropical North QLD and NT etc etc. Now that the sun is declining, are these zones shifting northwards – giving the impression of a changing climate to those in the drought or sub-tropical areas? We (in Victoria in the ranges)have had a cool but not frosty winter and plenty of rain – that is due to increased cloud cover on average whilst everyone else seems to be in drought. Now it is warming up as we have clear days and sunshine. Are we now going into drought or is it just the normal seasonal changes? We used to hear a lot about species moving polewards because of rising temperatures. When did we stop hearing about that? Are they now moving back towards the equator as things start to cool again?

        00

  • #
    Graeme#4

    That’s why I recently warned that it was unwise to quote Pitman.

    70

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Well we knew he would be forced into a qualifier by the green blob .
    Inserting the word “direct” doesn’t help their cause or his when you hear the rest of what he said .

    80

  • #
    Paul G.

    Why not look at volcanic activity, dust and gases in the atmosphere, which can reduce the Trade Winds driving moisture across the Pacific Ocean, leaving Eastern Australia dry.

    20

  • #
    Michael Fry

    Having said what I said above, I think it is entirely appropriate for Bolt and Kenny to report what Pitman actually said. He is reflecting the current state of the IPCC’s version of “the science”, as opposed to the catastrophism of St Greta et al. It forces the ABC to try to defend the extremists.

    110

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Michael, the IPCCCCC has no scientific credibility and their ABC even less.

      There is no Climate Change Emergency related to atmospheric CO2 levels and if the Climate in the Northern hemisphere over the last five years can be introduced in evidence it’s all over.

      A few years ago in the north of Russia 10,000 food beasts were frozen to death. Across North America it has been cold, snowy and icy.

      Global Warming????

      That this horrific mess continues is firm testimony that humans have not evolved all that much and we are going round and round in ever decreasing circles.

      KK

      60

  • #
    pat

    Chris Kenny on Media (Sky) tonite had this plus another one from Dempster re Pitman.

    TWEET: Quentin Dempster (ex-ABC)
    Aggressive @rupertmurdoch SkyNews climate change deniers Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones and Chris Kenny have been exposed by @TheRealPBarry@ABCmediawatch 14/10/19 misrepresenting Prof. Andy Pitman. Droughts ARE made worse by human induced global warming.
    15 Oct 2019
    https://twitter.com/QuentinDempster/status/1184081854443343878

    haven’t got time to look for the other one tonite, but there’s a couple of recent tweets on Dempster’s main twitter page worth a look re casuals being underpaid at ABC, etc.

    60

    • #

      Well, there’s a chance for Pitman to show how honest he is… Will he speak up and correct Dempster?

      160

      • #
        Michael Fry

        OK I am agreeing now. He profits from his silence (IPCC gravy trains et al). He needs to re-enter this debate publicly, as a matter of intellectual integrity.

        120

      • #
        ivan

        Jo, I think it is a matter of ‘will his university big wigs allow him to do so’ rather than his moral stand.

        140

        • #

          Agreed Ivan. Pitman would be under enormous pressure to bury the brutal truth. It’s a tough task. But he — like all the others — has a choice.

          Some scientists are just hitching a free ride on a brand name built by giants. If they take the public money, they have a duty to correct major public misunderstandings in their field.

          If climate science matters, if the world is at stake…

          210

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Just found this from the ABS of all places on drought in this country , couldn’t find AGW anywhere

    https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/lookup/1301.0Feature%20Article151988

    20

  • #
    John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

    Paul Barry is an overpaid dill. I love this bit from Tim Blair, one of Barry’s greatest fans (sarc).

    “The Media Watch host’s lamentable 2006 biography of Shane Warne, titled Spun Out, was accurately described by Gideon Haigh as a “hatchet job where the biographer comes off worse than his subject”:”

    It was hereabouts in Spun Out that I felt my scepticism hardening. Not about Warne, incorrigible and foolish as he is, but Barry, a journalist held in high professional esteem. Because in two paragraphs he had perpetrated two of the giveaways of lazy reporting: giving credence to a wild, unsourced innuendo on no evidence other than guesswork, then alleging a conspiracy of silence that he, righteous man, nobly scorned …
    Barry hasn’t a clue; nor am I sure that he really cares.

    130

    • #
      Dennis

      I have not been interested in what he has to say, and find his presentation repulsive.

      80

      • #
        Serp

        Indeed Dennis; in describing the decrepit Mister Barry words such as hidebound, sanctimonious, condescending, uninformed, tiresome and cadaverous readily spring to mind but if a single word has to suffice then nauseating.

        10

  • #

    For more places than not, cooler = drier. Hence the Ming Drought, fall of Old Kingdom, Bronze Age collapse. And the rest.

    They actually know all this basic stuff. They just don’t want to talk about it because drought, inevitable in Australia, is the perfect change to press those climate buttons. This in a country whose first Europeans were almost wiped out by the monsoon failures of the early 1790s.

    Since the depopulation of the bush is a prime goal of the globsters, those buttons will get pressed harder and more often. And if every weather extreme went away, they would complain of an “eerie sameness” or “unnatural monotony” or “impossible regularity” of climate. (For once they would be right.)

    It’s amazing how much ignorance you can achieve with enough education.

    110

  • #
    PeterS

    Don’t bother to figure it out. Stupidity is widespread in the scientific world today.

    60

  • #
    Zigmaster

    The scandal here is not the dispute between Paul Barry and Andrew Bolt about who is misrepresenting facts ( I know who I believe) but why does a respected climate scientist feel the need to moderate his own comments to satisfy the baying of the warmist devotees. If I was more cynical I may have suspected that Andy Pitman suddenly could see the financial downside to stating the facts could be quite significant. Whether it was direct or just implied the change of mind sounded like a knee jerk response to real or imagined bullying by the warmist fanatics.

    90

  • #
    Zigmaster

    The irony about discussing whether CO2 causes climate change which causes drought means that money that is desperately need to help victims of the drought is being diverted in a futile effort to reduce emissions. When the farmers are all broke because of drought and other industries disappear because of high electricity prices ,emissions are the least of our problems.

    140

  • #
    Don B

    A century ago a young poet knew more than Pitman (after correction) knows today.

    Australia is a country of drought and flooding rains.

    110

    • #
      Don B

      I love a sunburnt country,
      A land of sweeping plains,
      Of ragged mountain ranges,
      Of droughts and flooding rains.

      https://allpoetry.com/poem/8526595-My-Country-by-Dorothea-Mackellar

      61

      • #
        TdeF

        Yes, that is the climate, not climate change. And we Australians are refusing to adapt to it as our predecessors did. Refusing to build dams for the last 50 years. We can only be grateful for the 26 locks down our biggest river, the Murray, locks which kept the whole river system alive through the worst drought since the Federation drought. And this despite the demands from Greens that we open the gates and let the waters run to the ocean because the fish are thirsty and we should not imprison water or interfere with nature.

        The ancient Babylonians, Nabateans, Romans and Arabs were masters of water in dry places, aqueducts, covered conduits and they showed off by having fountains and green oases in the middle of the most extreme desert climates. Doughts and flooding rains as at Petra, Jordan. So we refuse to work such miracles and prefer to blame mythical Climate Change, not the wilful interference in water husbandry of science free Gaia worshiping Green politicians.

        110

      • #
        Dennis

        The bloggers from the left claim that Dorethea’s poem is a fantasy written by a young naive city person. They apparently don’t realise that she spent a lot of time on her brother’s farms.

        Never ceases to amaze me what deceivers will post to divert attention from facts.

        80

  • #
    Lawrence E Todd

    so if I read this correctly He says that we do not know the direct effects so we know it is indirect. Please go back to college and take some logic classes.

    80

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Let’s see, he’s saying that we don’t understand what we don’t understand. How profound can you get? Isn’t he eligible for some prize or another? Maybe joker of the year or something similar.

    40

  • #
    TdeF

    “The recent drought in South Africa, for example, in which Cape Town nearly ran out of water, was made three times more likely by climate change, according to researchers led by Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute.”

    Now how would anyone know this? It’s part of a pattern of claiming some sort of proportionality on probabilities from something which is not itself proven. And a figure of three times as if it was calculable to some precision?

    This is fake science, fake news, fake mathematics based on fake theory but they have invented an actual number and we are to believe the Climate Change Institute or the IPClimate Change do not have a vested interest in such silly announcements?

    The whole idea of ‘extreme events’ and the increased and precise likelihood or more storms, more droughts, more severe storms, more severe and longer droughts is such a stretch when the very basis of man made Climate Change itself is unproven. From what hat are they pulling these numbers? And hat is a euphemism.

    It is also, as they know very well, impossible to prove wrong. Which is the entire reason such incredible science free random statements are made with fantasy precision.

    100

    • #
      Serp

      BOM has an Extreme Weather Desk and you can rely on its officers to appropriate every plausible piece of weather to its remit; the BOM has to be the government agency most urgently in need of the liposuction which privatisation delivers.

      00

  • #
    John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

    Nigel Farage interviews an Xtinction Rebellion ‘leader’.
    She talks about disruption, he talks about the right for people to go about their business freely; She talks carbon, he talks carbon dioxide; she talks some vague People Assemblies telling the government what to do, he talks about Democratically elected Government and referendums; she talks about forcing industry to restructure but gives no forward plan, he talks about maybe they should be reforesting England as an alternative (no joy for Nigel there); at the end, she is still talking about the science but still referring to CO2 as Carbon.
    These people are nutters.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vOxgzIeSt4

    101

    • #
      Dennis

      I am still waiting for the Environmental Protection Agency to deal with that “carbon” and “carbon pollution” the leftists talk about.

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        In theory, the output of combustion has twice as much oxygen as carbon

        They should be referring to it a “Oxygen pollution”

        Or in the case of methane, it is “Hydrogen pollution”

        50

  • #
    Clyde Spencer

    A constant meme of alarmists is that a warming world will result in more extremes in weather — hurricanes, heat waves, droughts, etc. The problem is, there is little evidence it is happening. Further, with the high latitudes warming more rapidly than the middle latitudes, the temperature differences that drive winds and pressure differences decrease, resulting in more moderate weather. So, with more water vapor in the air, there are three possibilities: 1) Precipitation will will increase everywhere; 2) Precipitation will increase in wet areas and decrease in dry areas; 3) Precipitation will change randomly. What are the probabilities of the last two scenarios when there is little evidential support for extreme weather, and most climate zones are the result of latitude, elevation, and topography?

    80

    • #
      TdeF

      And who invented this concept of ‘extreme weather’s. And who can give it any credence when the primary proposition of CO2 driven temperature is clearly wrong.

      70

      • #
        TdeF

        And when you are claiming temperature records by 0.004C it is clear that despite the best efforts of the BOM, the temperature is not changing.

        70

    • #
      David Wojick

      Note that increased water vapor alone cannot cause #2. In fact it makes #2 less likely. Some other cause must be invoked. Yesterday this is what the goofy models show: more water = more drought.

      50

    • #
      me@home

      Clyde, I think you mean there is zero evidence of more extreme weather. How else to account for a world wide reduction of deaths from adverse weather events in the last hundred years of 95%?

      30

  • #
    FrankH

    Neptune is travelling through the constellation Pieces

    I think you probably meant “Pisces”.

    Please send my fee to:
    Pruf Reeders Inc at the usual address.

    ;-)

    80

  • #
    Lance

    A bit of comedy for all. This is truly funny. :)

    ” Yes Prime Minister Global Warming etc Part 2″

    https://vimeo.com/124392955?fbclid=IwAR27SNFBUqMMOlP_gu_nTJo82GDmz26yG5vuSiAVok2-XghlITVo3z7d2V0

    50

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    This is an important thread because it is focusing on the very heart of the CO2 induced Climate Change Catastrophe;

    Government and University endorsement of “The Science”.

    As Jo says;

    “If climate science matters, if the world is at stake…”

    Well the scientific fact is that atmospheric CO2 levels have no relationship to the weather. End of story.

    Unfortunately this fact prompts the next question:

    Why do universities have Climate Science departments whose sole purpose is to promote the link between CO2 and world overheating?

    The whole thing is predicated on a Nothing.

    KK

    70

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      The actual driving force behind this “Climate of Alarm” is

      Money.

      60

      • #
        TdeF

        Yes, $1,500,000,000,000 a year in hard cash. For nothing.

        Imagine if that was spent on Fusion research? We might have it by now and then we have infinite, free, pollution free power.

        But perhaps 500,000 useless windmills makes more sense?

        70

  • #
    David Wojick

    A fine Irish overview of skeptical climate science:

    “Overview of the Latest Climate Science for Policymakers”

    Just posted on my Climate Change Debate Education website. This elegant (and graphic filled) 36 page white paper provides a brief overview of the latest skeptical Climate Science, compiled by the Irish Climate Science Forum.

    http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/2019/10/an-irish-overview-of-latest-climate.html

    Many of the major issues are touched on, from paleoclimate and hot models to floods and global greening. The treatment is data intensive and the numerous graphs are excellent. There are also over 100 references. This paper is a good textbook.

    David

    Fundraiser:

    The children are marching, mouthing nonsense.

    Can you spare $50 for climate education? How about $100? Even $25 will help us take the next step. Donate here: https://www.gofundme.com/f/climate-change-debate-education Donations can be anonymous.

    Thank you!
    The Climate Change Debate Education Project

    72

  • #
  • #
    AndyG55

    The study done using model output from the NACLiM database for the Hunter region came to this conclusion….

    “However, the climate change assessment for both the IFD rainfall depth and antecedent soil moisture analyses suggests that the climate change impact is minor compared to the natural variability in the 20-year datasets as well as the variability between GCMs and RCMs.”

    Basically, the climate models are all over the place when it comes to rainfall, and even if they were anything more glorified computer games, tell us absolutely nothing about future trends in rainfall or soil moisture conditions.

    50

  • #
  • #
    Dennis

    From The Australian newspaper, the Queensland Labor State Government plan.

    Remember the climate change hoax plans Shorten Labor Opposition would not say how much it would cost our nation during the May 2019 election campaign?

    “It is a plan that could forever change Queensland’s economy — possibly putting Australian-first environmental hurdles in the way of new projects, particularly in mining — but until now its existence was a secret.

    And the Palaszczuk government wants to keep it that way.

    Commissioned last year by the Labor government, Australia’s top environmental lawyers were asked to “explore the issue of climate risk litigation’’ as part of its “Advancing Queensland Priority Action: Protecting the Great Barrier Reef’’ policy.

    At the time, the Left-dominated cabinet was talking down the coal industry and putting up 11th-hour roadblocks to Adani’s Carmichael mine that ultimately cost Labor seats in regional Queensland at the May federal election.

    An application under state Freedom of Information laws for internal emails canvassing the Adani project by veteran anti-coal activist Tim Seelig — controversially appointed last year as the Department of Environment’s top policy adviser — unearthed the existence of “the proposal for Queensland’’.

    The Palaszczuk government is, however, refusing to answer questions or release the document, ­attached to one of the emails, ­arguing that its contents are “commercial in confidence’’.

    continues at The Australian

    20

  • #
    Serge Wright

    It’s all too obvious what occured here.

    Andy had a truth-telling / brain-fade moment and accidently spilled the beans on the non-linkage between CO2 and extreme weather such as drought. It was at this point the Adjustment Bureau Commission was called in and the required re-education applied, leading to the new quantified statement. Of course some damage has aready been done and damage control will need to be applied for a few months, so we can expect many articles from the ABC on these newly identified high-confidence indirect links.

    However, what this incident does demonstrate is just how much influence the media has on both the reporting and distortion of science. All it took was our own taxpayer funded extreme left-wing ABC to intervene and suddenly a whole new theory of weather and climate regarding indirect linkages is spawned, replacing the old theory where no linkage whatsoever had been detected. The way the incident was handled is also of interest, where Media Watch was given the job of trying to discredit Bolt’s reporting of Andy’s speech, by claiming the exact quoting was a cherry pick. Using Media Watch as their guard dog to discredit unwanted truthful reporting on CC seems to be the new approach, rather than engage in a science debate using one of the science programs such as Catalyst, which would be futile in the face of the real world evidence. Perhaps they should re-name Media Watch to Climate Change Watch to better reflect the programs new ideological agenda ?

    On a positive note, with the WIN network now broadcasting Sky News across regional Australia on FTA TV, many people would have seen Bolt’s harsh exorcism response to Paul Barry’s attempted hatchet job and most if not all of those people would have agreed with Bolt. I’m sure the broadcast of Sky News and it’s host of conservative commentators must create sleepless nights for the ABC lefties who would see this outlet as their greatest threat to achieving their goal of removing democracy and establishing a harsh regime of communism and control.

    30

  • #
    Thingadonta

    Most climate scientists have a tendency to ignore the geological record. I have even heard one say, ‘what relevance has the distant past got to do with what humans are doing now?’.

    This sort of attitude and ignorance also stifled discovery concerning evolution, because geology was telling the scientists who were looking that the earth was very old, that life had changed over time, and it was only a matter of time before someone like Darwin, who was actually trained as a geologist, made the connection with speciation on something like islands, Malthus’ ideas on variation in populations, and what one could see in the geological record. Some at the time were of the view; ‘what has the rocks got to do with humans’. Well actually, quite a bit. Same with climate science.

    It has long been known, from cores drilled around Australia (actual physical rocks, not colorful computer screens), that Australia is generally drier when cooler, as in the recent Ice Ages. It was also wetter when much further south and also cooler, with rainforests in places which are now desert (eg Riversleigh fossils).

    This is the opposite of what many climate scientists they are currently saying, that Australia will get more drought, or drier, under global warming. Do you think they get this idea from looking at the distant past, given the above attitude/comments?

    60

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘The recent drought in South Africa, for example, in which Cape Town nearly ran out of water, was made three times more likely by climate change …’

    Its a big lie and I’ll prove it.

    30

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      I suspect that high population growth
      Meaning much higher water demand
      Coupled with not building any more reservoirs
      Is the real reason for the lack of water at Cape Town

      20

    • #

      Good luck. You have to prove 2 things though.

      1. It was something else
      2. it was a lie.

      11

      • #
        AndyG55

        3. It wasn’t based on anything except FANTASY and worthless models.

        20

      • #
        el gordo

        The big lie is that its caused by global warming, when in fact it has to do with natural variables like the collapse of the STR.

        Solar forcing has its fingerprints all over it.

        40

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Climate Change™” only exists in models

        There is no way that something that only exists in fantasy models can cause any actual reality.

        50

      • #
        el gordo

        The ‘something else’ was a strong El Nino in 2015-16.

        00

        • #
          Greg in NZ

          That slide of Pitman’s which Jo includes in her intro (via Andrew Bolt) clearly shows the dreaded Tassie ‘Blocking High’ between Aus & NZ, rotating slowly in an anti-clockwise direction [for Climate Alarmists of a northern hemi persuasion, that's how things work down here, south of the equator, just in case]. This week’s BøM weather prognosis has the exact, same situation recurring: cold southerlies for us, warm northerlies for you fellas, same as it ever was except when it wasn’t.

          As for the whacked-out computer simulation ‘proving’ 4% of 0.04% atmospheric CO₂ can now ‘drive’ jet streams:

          http://squall.sfsu.edu/gif/jetstream_sohem_00.gif [southern hemisphere jet stream 22 Oct]

          It’s an odd, back-to-front, upside-down world these nightmarish fantasists live in. Meanwhile the snow keeps falling down south: Porters Pass “10 to 15cm of snow may settle on the road above 500 metres, with lesser amounts down to 300 metres”. From the Desert Road to Milford Sound, snow, baby, SNOW! All week long…

          https://www.metservice.com/warnings/road-snowfall-warnings

          30

          • #
            el gordo

            Notice how the jet stream goes around high pressure.

            https://www.weatherzone.com.au/synoptic.jsp?d=0

            Looking ahead to Thursday, Friday and Saturday, its Surfers Paradise weather for the kiwis.

            20

            • #
              Greg in NZ

              ‘kiwis’ sleep all day then root about in the bush all night, whereas ‘Kiwis’ do the opposite (um, well, maybe not).

              Notice how the jet stream goes around high pressure: or, high pressure is where the jet stream isn’t?

              Glad Friday is smack-bang in the middle of your 3-day ‘Surfers Paradise’ prediction, el g, as the boss is shouting we-three drivers a day on the juice – get to dress up and play tourist ourselves for a change – with our first vineyard taste at Goldie Estate followed by Stonyridge then more sunshine & happiness and maybe even my first swim in the ocean for ‘summer’… yeah nah.

              20

              • #
                el gordo

                I notice that people are leaving the cities because they are being priced out of the market and forced to live in the regions. This real estate inflation has been caused by Oz citizens and I apologise for that.

                00

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        It could have been a misunderstanding or more likely a misconception, and there have been a few of those visiting the blog recently.

        00

  • #
    DMA

    Well from here in Montana the cause of Australian drought is obvious. It is clearly the lack of new desalination capabilities. The last time you guys built a plant the drought immediately turned into floods. Maybe make a smaller one this time to keep flood intensity under control.

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      The Sydney Desal plant has actually been operating and providing water for a couple of months now.

      Was turned on when Warragamba Dam dropped to 60% capacity.

      Can’t remember the operating rules, but I think they have to stay on for a set period , only turned off after that if Warragamba is above a certain level.

      30

    • #
  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    This one definitely pisses off the climate alarmists ie
    warmer planet = more evaporation = more rain.
    So less drought! First year high school.
    GeoffW

    50

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      Yep, more rain on the oceans, good for crops that grow on the 7 seas
      Yep, more rain, falling as more intense storms, good for crops that can resist minor flooding and erosion
      Yep, more rain, falling in areas which already have enough, like the wet tropics.

      I can see the climate scientists grinding their teeth, and bowing their heads in shame. /sarc

      09

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    I see that no one is asking the most obvious question in this little storm in a teacup.

    The question is “Why should there be a link between climate change and droughts?”

    Prof Pitman is being honest when saying either no link or no direct link.
    You are asserting, without proof, that there must be a link, and the Prof is wrong. If you thinksthere is a link, then show it, and then it can be tested

    My understanding of the effects of climate change, which is superimposed on the natural cycles, is that It will amplify the those natural weather cycles and events. This is because the system has be given adrenaline, in the form of energy. Which as as any physicist or chemist knows, makes things go quicker. Murphy’s law of thermodynamics states under increased temperature or pressure, things go wrong faster.

    08

    • #
      AndyG55

      ““Why should there be a link between climate change and droughts?””

      There isn’t.

      Your understanding is MINIMAL, at best. !!

      … and is based mainly on pure FANTASY.

      61

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        What is the proof? you have none for either proposition OWM

        06

        • #
          AndyG55

          Your posts are the proof of your minimal understand and fantasies about climate.

          The fact that you are NEVER able to cite empirical science to back up anything you say.

          “Climate Change™” has never been proven to exist. It is a fantasy

          So any link with droughts can only be also a FANTASY.

          As you say…

          “Prof Pitman is being honest when saying either no link or no direct link.”

          It is very unusual for a “climate scientist™” to tell the actual truth.

          41

    • #
      AndyG55

      We are of course using the AGW scammer definition of “climate change”

      ie Change in climate caused by human released CO2

      Which ISN’T HAPPENING.

      So there cannot be any link because “Climate Change™” does not exist in reality

      50

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        If your assertion is true “Climate Change isn’t Happening” – Then the climate mast be stable, and droughts must be easy to predict in such a stable system.
        However, you have continually asserted that the increase in CO2 (by a means not specified by you) is a good thing, as it is ‘plant food’ Surely this means that the climate is changing.

        So which is it?

        /An eager nation is holding it’s collective breath

        01

        • #
          AndyG55

          Again the total lack of comprehension.

          Are you just DUMB or is it intentional ???

          “Climate Change™” as in global climate change caused by human CO2.

          There is no evidence that it is happening, only warming has been from El Nino events.

          Not even you are dumb enough to pretend that El Ninos are caused by human CO2.. (or are you !)

          And given that even you cannot provide one single scientifically proven instance of CO2 caused global climate change in the last 40 years, why do you continue to “believe” that it is ?

          Are you so brain-washed and cognitively deranged that you can’t see passed your own lack of evidence???

          Great that you finally ADMIT that CO2 is just plant food and thus is a massive benefit to ALL LIFE ON EARTH, well done PF.

          One step forward.

          Now to watch you do a massive faceplant as you try to weasel out of the truth… yet again ;-)

          11

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            So the climate is not changing! They why are dryland plants going greener? This is another of your CO2 is plant food mantras.

            It is one or the other , it can not be both. Do you understand that tiny tiny bit of logic at least.

            /Vishnu your turn to return serve

            02

            • #
              AndyG55

              ” They why are dryland plants going greener?”

              Great News isn’t it

              Your contemptuous HATRED of plant life is utterly bizarre.

              Plants can use water more efficiently, of course they grow better in dry place

              Your slimy attempt to link expanded plant growth to “climate change” is just another childish and anti-science attempt at distraction. A moronic strawman attempt

              UTTERLY FAILED as always.

              21

          • #
            Vishnu

            “cannot provide one single scientifically proven instance of CO2 caused global climate change in the last 40 years, why do you continue to “believe” that it is ?”

            dunno – I guess global warming without a solar driver, a greenhouse gas of well know properties, previous behaviour confirmed by palaeoclimate studies, radiation balance change physically measured, the Arctic and glaciers melting, species phenology changing. Just to start …

            BTW on CO2 is plant food – I assume you are happy that C3 woodies are choking out C4 grasses on global savannas from extra atmospheric CO2. Unknown ecological consequences all lost on your singular neuron.

            10

            • #
              AndyG55

              So that would be NO PROVEN INSTANCE of CO2 warming. Thanks.

              And another mentally deficit twit that HATES plants and wants to starve them.

              Keep with the fantasies little-vishy.

              “radiation balance change physically measured”

              You mean like this, where balance is actually shown to be maintained?

              A single cell amoeba would have stronger thought processes that you, Vishy.

              20

    • #
      Chad

      PF.. you said…

      Prof Pitman is being honest when saying either no link or no direct link.
      You are asserting, without proof, that there must be a link, and the Prof is wrong. If you thinksthere is a link, then show it

      You really should read before you post.
      You have completely lost the point of this thread , and in doing so , grabbed the complete opposite of what is being said.
      I respect different views and comments, but You are obviously nothing more than a troll with no ability to think for yourself.
      FFS just go away !

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        “You have completely lost the point of this thread”

        PF’s comment are at least 97% POINTLESS. !!

        (Unless his aim is purely a childish type of attention seeking.)

        11

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      Fitz, go back to first year high school;
      All this prof Pitman stuff is confusing you.
      My advice is for you is to stick to basics . .
      Best Regards GeoffW

      20

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Nah Chad, and Geffrey – if you understand logic, you would understand that be asserting that Prof Pitman is wrong is to assert that there is a link. For form’s sake
        “ we don’t understand what causes droughts.”
        “we don’t know what stops a drought”.
        “there is no link between climate change and drought.”
        “there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.”
        ”there’s no trend in data…. There is no drying trend. … “no trend in the last hundred years“

        These are all the statements in the article at the top attributable to Prof Pittman.

        Now my statement “Why should there be a link between climate change and droughts?” is in the context of that

        All that arguments presented here which say that Pitman is wrong also fail to prove that statement.

        01

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Oh and stay away from the ad homs – if that is your approach then you have not science or logic on your side.

        02

        • #
          AndyG55

          Your whole posts on here have been one load of arrogant ad-homs, PF

          You have certainly stayed away from any science or logic.

          Pitman is totally correct,

          THERE IS NO LINK between mythical model-based human caused climate change, and droughts.

          Glad you agree on that point.

          20

  • #
    justjoshin

    A lot of climate models seem almost as accurate as the ancient Roman practice of haruspex.

    They could have saved a tonne on climate modelling by purchasing a heap of chickens.

    20

  • #
    Brian the Engineer

    I really think that they have cause and effect back to front in regard to heat and rainfall.
    Lack of rainfall causes the heat, the heat does not cause the lack of rainfall. When it doesn’t rain the heat builds up in the ground till it reaches a radiation balance between incoming and outgoing radiative heat flow and the temperature measurements locally become very high.
    When it rains the evaporation of the water picks up the heat as water vapour and the winds blow the heat somewhere else and the temperature measurements locally go down. The thermometer records are in any case useless in regard to measuring the miniscule changes in temperature required for making any judgement in regard to AGW/ACC/(next acronym)

    31

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    OWM – who by definition know all there is to be known (Bolt et al), but instead of logic, facts or science, prefer bluster and shouting, as this makes their jowls wobble in a most delightful way.

    06

    • #
      AndyG55

      “but instead of logic, facts or science”

      NONE of which you are capable of producing !

      You remain an empty attention-seeking troll./

      Nothing more.

      51

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Thanks OWM, I love it when you prove a point that I’m advancing

        /Old White Men – Statler and Waldorf were funnier

        05

      • #
        Vishnu

        Andy’s science argument – you’re WRONG, pathetic, wrong, useless and wrong.
        You’re also wrong. Sprinkle random science words with a few verbs. Say pathetic again.
        Yep I’m following you. Devastating repartee.
        PS You are wrong. And also wrong. Not to mention wrong. I published it.

        11

        • #
          AndyG55

          So funny.. and pathetic.

          Absolutely ZERO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of human cause global climate change from either of you.

          Just more moronically childish attempts at trolling.

          10

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘Now my statement “Why should there be a link between climate change and droughts?” is in the context of that’

            ‘All that arguments presented here which say that Pitman is wrong also fail to prove that statement.

            I’ll have a crack at it sir, a consensus has developed where global warming is linked to drought and droughty conditions will worsen, and that is why we built the desalination plants.

            “ we don’t understand what causes droughts.” El Nino

            “we don’t know what stops a drought”. La Nina

            “there is no link between climate change and drought.” True

            “there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.” True

            ”there’s no trend in data…. There is no drying trend. … “no trend in the last hundred years“ True

            10

  • #
    Vishnu

    No trend – if you’re time series devotee. What’s the average of drought and flood El Gordo – for you “just right”

    Try this – https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/10/15/1911130116.short?rss=1

    01

    • #
      AndyG55

      LOL — another climate-modelling ie crystal-ball-gazing event

      So funny.

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Warming sea water.. So SOLAR, not CO2

      Thanks for the laugh, little-vishy.

      10

    • #
      el gordo

      ENSO behaviour is of great interest, thanks for that abstract.

      The warm pool maybe related to undersea activity, I’ll have a closer look.

      00

    • #
      el gordo

      Not exactly related, we know at the LGM the warm pool was a couple of degrees cooler, but focussing on the Holocene.

      ‘In summary, the oceanic climate reconstructions indicate a semi-permanent La Niña-like state in tropical Pacific SSTs during the early-middle Holocene. A prolonged, westward-concentrated La Niña during the early-middle Holocene agrees with terrestrial paleoclimate records indicating warmer and wetter conditions in the tropical Western Pacific region, as discussed earlier. Moreover, the Holocene cooling to a more El Niño-like state in Pacific SSTs explains why Near Oceania became progressively drier in the late Holocene.’ Anderson and Shulmeister 2007

      You posed the question what’s the average of drought and flood, Jevons reckons 20 years warm dry followed by 20 years cool wet is pretty average.

      00

  • #
    Don Gaddes

    It is obvious that the ‘X Factor’ Dry Cycle Hierarchy is happening, (as described by Alex S. Gaddes in his work ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ 1990.)
    His Regional and Minor Cycles have been accurately defined and verified by international and Australian precipitation events.
    The configuration of these cycles means there can be NO ‘average’ temperature, or rainfall data,(as presented by the various Bureaus of Meteorology around the world.)
    The cycle hierarchy only repeats for Date and associated Longitude once every 81 years.
    The temperature warms, or cools depending on the geographical positioning of the cycle’s Terrestrial Footprint at any particular juncture in their travel around the globe.
    The ‘mechanics’ of these cycles,(along with a forecast from 1761.41 – 2065.16 can be found in the now expanded review of the work – available as a free PDF from dongaddes93@gmail.com

    10

  • #
    High Treason

    The entire response from Andy Pitman on the night is riddled with very interesting admissions. I was there-almost fell off my chair scrambling for my note pad.
    TWICE, he referred to the fact that what he was going to say is not what is expected in the media- very telling. Mainstream media don’t tell the entire truth. Hmmmmmm.
    The data over the last 100 years do not show a drying trend over the whole of the last 100 years. Claiming that “climate change” causes the current drought is thus untrue. This was stressed. You do not stress something that was said in error. See above point.
    There is no link between drought and climate change. Why was it stressed?
    The last but most revealing point was about the fundamental problem being that they do not understand what causes droughts. Hang about, if the science is supposedly settled, how can this be? How can they justify radical “climate action” let alone declaring a “climate emergency” , which could entail all available resources diverted to combat the existential threat(marshal law) when the science clearly is not settled?
    As Pauline Hanson would say- Please Explain.
    As for Media Watch,who do they think they are kidding by deliberately withholding most of the comment and trying to weasel out of the truth. “Your” ABC- half truth on your tab.

    30

  • #
    Vishnu

    oooo – who has been doing his homework then? Maybe I’ve underestimated you as a total dimwit? I apologise – I thought you were just paid to mindlessly rag any visiting warmers with sem-incoherent drivel.

    But if solar why not warming everywhere – you being a global uniformatarianist and all that?

    10

  • #

    As CO2 levels have risen, global drought incidence and severity have not increased. If anything, they’ve decreased very slightly.
    Refs: https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html#droughts
    Graph: https://sealevel.info/Fraction_of_the_Globe_in_Drought_1982-2012_fig5c.png

    Over here in the United States, we tend to associate droughts with warm periods, but that’s a local prejudice.

    1. In part, we tend to think that because of the local seasonal correlation: in much of the USA, droughts occur mostly during summertime. However, in much of the rest of the world, including India, Bangladesh, and the Sahel, summertime is monsoon season, and it’s winters which are dry.

    2. We also tend to associate droughts with warm periods because on the American Great Plains the 1930s warm period coincided with the Dust Bowl (drought). However, in general, globally, droughts are not positively correlated with warm periods. In fact, during the Roman Warm Period two millenia ago, arid North Africa was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire.

    The one indisputable drought-related impact of manmade climate change is very positive: higher CO2 levels help mitigate damage to plants by droughts.

    Overall, the increase in atmospheric CO2 level from just under 0.03% (at the beginning of the 20th century) to just over 0.04% (now) has increased crop yields by an average of about 20%, by “CO2 fertilization.” That’s one of the factors which have helped eliminate major famines. But higher CO2 levels are even more beneficial when crops are under drought stress, because elevated CO2 makes plants more water-efficient and drought-resilient, by improving stomatal conductance relative to transpiration. That’s especially important for preventing famine, because droughts used to be a major cause of catastrophic famines. In fact, the global drought & famine of 1876-78 killed about 3.7% of world population; for comparison, WWII killed about 2.7% of world population, and the 1918 flu pandemic killed about 2% of world population.
    Refs: Donohue, et al, 2014, Chun, et al, 2010, Fitzgerald, et al, 2016, and many others.
    Pictures: https://sealevel.info/madras_famine_with_co2_300_vs_glut_with_co2_400_horizontal2_and_SciAm1920_potatoes.png

    00

Leave a 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>