1953 Headline: Melbourne’s weather is changing! Summers getting colder and wetter

The average maximum temperatures [of SE Australia] during the last 35 years were between two and four degrees (F) lower than the average for the previous 35 years. — CSIRO 1953

Once upon a time — before the Great Politicization of Climate Science — CSIRO was able to analyze trends from 1880 to 1910. In 1953 CSIRO scientists were making a case that large parts of Australia had been hotter in the 1880s and around the turn of last century. They are referring specifically to summer maximums, and presumably the increase in rainfall over the same period played a large role in preventing hot days from becoming hotter. Minimum and mean trends may have been quite different, but these older maximum records are surely relevant when news headlines are drafted today about hot summers and heatwaves.

So what happened to the widespread lost hot decades?

I have a lot more to say on the warm and the work of these scientists. For the moment, the full archived news story is entertaining in its own right. Thanks to Chris Gillham for this link and to Jennifer Marohasy. Graphs tomorrow : – )

— Jo


The Argus (Melbourne, Vic) Wednesday 18 March 1953


by Gordon Williams
The days are cooler than they used to be, and our summers ARE wetter – much wetter than they were when the older people of today were young.

And it’s not being caused by atom bomb explosions. The bomb school of conjecture can be disposed of swiftly, because the energy of a single average storm is equivalent to that of between 10,000 and 100,000 of our atom bombs.

“The change varied in different areas. Bendigo has cooled off 3.6 degrees (2C) over the period; Omeo, 3 degrees (1.7C); Echuca, only 1.6 (0.9C); and Albury 0.8 (0.45C). At Alice Springs the fall has been 2.3 (1.3C), and at Bourke 2.4 (1.3C) But Hay, in New South Wales, has cooled off 3.1 (1.9C) degrees, and Cooma 4.7 (2.6C).”

The change in the climate is sufficiently noticeable, and is considered important enough to have engaged leading weather scientists in extensive re- search.

They are Dr.’C. H. B. Priestley, officer in charge of the meteorological physics section of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and Mr. E. L. Deacon, a senior officer of the section.

Mr. Deacon found that, in south-eastern Australia in particular, the summer days were gradually getting cooler quite noticeably. The average maximum temperatures during the last 35 years were between two and four degrees [F] lower than the average for the previous 35 years.

The change varied in different areas. Bendigo has cooled off 3.6 degrees over the period; Omeo, 3 degrees; Echuca, only 1.6; and Albury 0.8. At Alice Springs the fall has been 2.3, and at Bourke 2.4. But Hay, in New South Wales, has cooled off 3.1 degrees, and Cooma 4.7. [degrees F]

The places named in the Argus article as having cooled over the 70 years to 1953.

But while the days have got cooler, the nights have got warmer, more or less evening averages out.

The change in rainfall was found to be even more remarkable than that in temperature.

In Melbourne, for Instance, the researchers found that Melbourne’s average summer rainfall for the 1911-1940 period was 16 per cent, higher than the average over the previous 30 years; in Victoria the increase was about 20 per cent.

But what is the cause of this’ And is it likely that the change will continue in the years ahead?

Scientists are cautious about forecasting. All that Mr. Deacon could say about the future was. “There is no evidence that the change is altering.”

So far as causes are concerned, they are still a matter for research. But there are two schools of thought:

The first is that variations, or changes, in the sun condition — sunspots, for example — directly influence weather, but so far there is no clear picture of effects.

The second, toward which Dr. Priestley and Mr. Deacon incline, is that the change is more a result of the make-up of the earth itself; some regions are ‘more delicately “poised” than others; while most of the populated areas are “stable,” and would require substantial changes in the sun to affect their climate, others are “unstable,” and would react to SLIGHT sun changes.

Among these unstable areas is the Antarctic polar ice cap. Australia, while relatively distant, from the polar cap, is particularly open to it; probably Victoria’s changing climate is caused by big changes in the ice cap, the effect of them being brought here by the winds and the ocean currents.

The two theories apply equally to the increased summer rainfalls.

The Northern Hemisphere is experiencing its weather changes, too — they appear a little more dramatic than ours, because they have affected the northern glaciers. (New Zealand glaciers are known to have “retreated,” too.)

Professor Ahlmann. a distinguished glaciologist, ‘writing of Iceland, says that the present, shrinkage of glaciers there is “exposing districts which were cultivated by early medieval farmers, but which were subsequently overridden by ice for 600 years.”

But, say the scientists, research in the Northern Hemisphere has concentrated on latitudes higher than Australia, and it may well be that essentially the same processes are at work in both hemispheres, bringing less severe winters in the higher, and milder summers in the lower, latitudes.

“Both of these effects would result from more vigorous wind systems, of which there is independent evidence,” Dr. Priestley said.

One proof of the “warming” of the far north is in the migration of fishes to waters which were once too cold for them; another is in the appearance of vegetation in zones where once no vegetation lived.

If these changes continue, it is clear that other important changes — economic, social, and physical — will follow. In the north, tracts now fertile may become desert; in the south, deserts may become fertile.

So, when the man in the street says “The seasons are changing,” he’s speaking an actual and important truth – but the sweeping changes, those that affect the earth’s surface greatly, are very slow, and their time scale is measured in thousands of years.

[FOOTNOTE: Melbourne holds the world record for the suddenness of its cool changes. Causes: Presumably, the presence of relatively hot desert, land masses, and relatively cold sea water. The cold water, in its turn, is caused by our “openness” to the Antarctic.

FOOTNOTE 2: It is, therefore, established that Melbourne’s weather is remarkable.]

Source:  Trove archives


9 out of 10 based on 94 ratings

82 comments to 1953 Headline: Melbourne’s weather is changing! Summers getting colder and wetter

  • #

    Unfortunately, we’ll have to wait somewhat longer before it become patently obvious to all and sundry that we are not heading towards catastrophic climate change of man’s doing and, by that time, the climate worriers will have retired and moved to warmer climes.


  • #
    Ian Hill

    The change varied in different areas. Bendigo has cooled off 3.6 degrees over the period; Omeo, 3 degrees; Echuca, only 1.6; and Albury 0.8. At Alice Springs the fall has been 2.3, and at Bourke 2.4. But Hay, in New South Wales, has cooled off 3.1 degrees, and Cooma 4.7.

    These would be degrees fahrenheit.


    • #

      Just for the record and to complete your statement: “The change varied in different areas. Bendigo has cooled off 3.6 degrees (2C) over the period; Omeo, 3 degrees; (1.7C) Echuca, only 1.6 (0.9C); and Albury 0.8 (0.45C) At Alice Springs the fall has been 2.3, (1.3C) and at Bourke 2.4 (1.3C) But Hay, in New South Wales, has cooled off 3.1 (1.9C) ()degrees, and Cooma 4.7 (2.6C). These would be degrees fahrenheit”. I hope they were!


  • #

    Good stuff, Joanne Nova. Once we are able to reinstate the period from 1880 to 1910 into the official record for Australia… and eventually be able to see this record unhomogenised for the rest of the world… the case for anthropogenic global warming must fall away.

    Everyone, don’t forget to throw Jo some cash… tip jar at top RHS of this blog. Be generous.

    Jen, thanks, It really does make a difference. I’m very grateful to the generous people that keep me going. Cheers – Jo


    • #
      Graeme No.3

      O/T ?

      See Graham Lloyd in the Australian today (Sept 12) about the BOM’s “decision” to release information on its “adjustments”.

      In particular his comment. He hasn’t stopped on this.

      Well done Jennifer, Ken and Joanne.


      • #
      • #
        Rod Stuart

        It is indeed refreshing to see at least some of the mainstream media reporting a point of view not shared by all the “middle class left wing pricks” at the ABC. Of course, the Murdoch media that the Left so ardently fear is the only enlightened source available to us, other than the ‘net.


        • #

          The Murdoch media has it’s bias issues as well IMHO … I figure if you take the average of the SMH and Australian, you are probably near the centre 🙂 Luckily the media bias in Australia is just a little left-of-centre or a little right-of-centre, relative to Aussie politics, which in turn is left-shifted compared to US politics. It’s all relative.

          I keep telling people, when you look at the major developed countries of the world, Australia has found the right balance in many respects. Most of what people complain about in this country really are first world problems. But you have to complain about something, right? We have a bloody good country here and should cherish it 🙂 I say this as someone who has lived for a minimum of several years in the Netherlands, UK, South Africa, US and Oz, in that order. IMO Oz is the best of the lot (I was born here but left at age 2). But I digress…


      • #

        Wasn’t BOM’s decision, they were forced by higher up.


  • #

    “And it’s not being caused by atom bomb explosions”

    But can we be sure? There were significantly less atom bomb explosions then than there are now!


  • #

    It’s a sad state of affairs when unpaid volunteers need to do the job of our well-funded BOM.


    • #
      Peter Carabot

      According to professor D. KAROLY you are alla bunch of amateurs… Monash astronomer… Mr Michael Brown instead said that “asking questions was an attempt to deny a century of science that proves global warming has occured and will continue to do so ”
      Thank you to the Oz and all of you we are now to the second stage of the debate, name calling, BOM must be furious, forced to publish their work by a bunch of busy body…. I am looking forward to see the complete analisys of the data in this blog.


  • #

    What’s really of note her is the professionalism of Gordon Williams’ journalism. In an age when hard information wasn’t a click away, a good journalist had to be au fait with several areas, and it shows in this piece. Notice the easy and factual dismissal of the then current school of alarmism – it’s all being caused by those nasty atom bombs.

    The added bonus is the English is both easy to read and grammatically spotless, in that important order.



  • #

    The inconvenient truth for Australian climate scientists wanting to jump on the CAGW bandwagon is that the Australian climate is controlled mainly by natural variations/oscillations of the Pacific and Indian oceans. Some try to make out that heatwaves cause drought, but the reality is probably the other way round, drought coming first via changes in the oceans, heatwaves then following from the relative absence of water in clouds and on the ground.


  • #

    Sorry. OT. Watch the comments ticker in the right column. About to hit 250,000 this week.


  • #
    Gee Aye

    Newspaper articles like are a great lesson in humility. We think we know so much because we are the ones alive today doing the thinking and writing.

    Speaking of humility how did I go with the 250k?


  • #
    Aaron M

    Headline is a bit ironic?

    “Melbourne’s weather is changing”

    The 1954 afternoon edition reads: “Oh Bother, it’s blimmin’ changed back already!”


  • #
    Graeme No.3

    I liked this bit

    “Scientists are cautious about forecasting. ”

    Times have changed!


  • #

    It’s hard to buck the truth. So many in the taxpayer funded climate “industry” have gone to herculean lengths to obscure the past. Your BoM and NASA here in the States have pulled out the stops to keep the warming myth alive. Real documented historical data, both empirical and anecdotal, will eventually overwhelm all of the “correction,” “homogenization” and “re-calibration” that appear to be creeping into the “official” records. I’m sure the Climateers will dismiss this story as one of the quoted researchers, Deacon, has (gasp) no letters after his name, obviously denoting a non-peer approved amateur so the current climate elite will see fit to ignore his observations. Jo, Jennifer and all the rest doing the real science and history, thank you. Hopefully we’re getting them on the run and soon we can start to return to real science.

    “Get ‘em skeered and keep the skeer on ‘em.”

    Lt. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest
    (He was a racist, but the quote is still good)


    • #

      My favourite story among many about Bedford Forest, a cavalry man right down to his boots, was when he ended up with Union forces on either side of him. “What’ll be do, General?” his aide-de-camp asked.

      “Split in two and charge both of them” was his reply. They did and bugger got away with it too.



  • #
    llew Jones

    We live in a scientific age and thus even those who are not in a specific discipline, such as climate science, still have some understanding of the relevance of observations in the development of such a discipline.

    Then of course all of us have had varying lengths of exposure to a specific climate. In other words we actually reside in what should be the laboratory for genuine climate science.

    It does seem that the alarmist sect of climate science is not based on that sort of observation but rather on a misreading of the incomplete and very inadequate historic science that postulates the logarithmic relationship between global temperature increases driven by a rising atmospheric concentration of CO2.

    All the rest, such as the claimed certainty of future more extreme weather patterns, due to that increasing CO2 concentration is shown, by past weather history in particular climate regions (such as mentioned in the newspaper article and the actual personal observational experience all of us have had) to be no more than historically observationally, ignorant and thus unscientific speculation.


  • #

    Question: So why is it that the recent moderate warming of about 1.0C over a century, or 0.9C since 1950, has stirred up so much blame on humans and concerns about catastrophic climate change when scientists in 1953 reacted scientifically and appropriately?

    Answer: The Global Warming/Climate Change scare has provided a massive opportunity for disparate groups to gain more control in the political and economic arena.

    Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to use man made global warming to her political advantage when she used concern about global warming as a reason to gain control of coal mines and crush the coal miner’s union which was crippling the economy in the UK.

    Other politicians soon cottoned on to the idea that global warming could be used to increase legislative power and influence. They funded scientists to carry out research to support the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Universities and academics couldn’t believe the rivers of gold flowing their way so they saw more of what got them additional funding, and not what might prove global warming was natural and nothing we did would make much difference. So we had the corruption of science.

    Simultaneously we had the peace-nick movement of young ideologists who saw their relevance diminish with the fall of the Berlin Wall, relative lack of wars to protest about around the world and even the reduction in nuclear armaments. The Green movement quickly stepped into the breach to scoop up these people without a cause.

    Then the Malthusians and those followers of the likes of Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb, who were convinced the world was headed towards over population and mass starvation, saw a reason to support their population control position.

    Finally add to that the proposition of taxing industrial activity through carbon trading or carbon taxes, and you had the rest of the politicians, bureaucrats and the financial industry on board!

    It was not a global conspiracy as some people might suggest, just an unhappy coincidence of a range of vested interests. Fortunately reality has started to set in as the few proper scientists show that the global temperature has a lot more to do with natural variations in solar activity in combination with the impacts of global ocean circulation, orbital and elliptical movement and negative and positive feedback loops in nature which react to changing temperature.

    One day people in the future will look back at this period of climate panic and wonder how we could have been so stupid!


    • #
      Ian Hill

      Good summary Jaymez.

      One day people in the future will look back at this period of climate panic and wonder how we could have been so stupid!

      I think a lot of it has to do with cowering to political correctness. No-one is allowed to be offended by anything. Everything has to be described in more words than necessary, especially job descriptions. You have to say “gender” instead of “sex”. Any advertisement showing more than one person has to be balanced so as not to be racist, sexist, ageist etc.

      This is complemented by an internet media which is so coy that any photo showing nudity has to have “rude bits” stickers all over it and yet they are quite happy to print articles describing disgusting or vulgar acts which make you wish you hadn’t clicked on the misleading headline or link.

      Strangely enough, many climate related headlines these days have a short lifetime. How many people have already forgotton the nonsense emanating from the CSIRO a few days ago? Not many readers here probably, but of the general public, most of them I reckon.

      Most people worry about these things for as long as it takes them to reach the next news item of interest, such as the team for next weekend’s footy match!

      Go the Power!


    • #

      “Disparate groups” – “It was not a global conspiracy as some people might suggest, just an unhappy coincidence of a range of vested interests.”

      Are you sure?


    • #

      Jaymez: At the time of Margaret Thatcher and the mining unions, I don’t recall the idea of global warming ever having been suggested – it wasn’t even a dot on the horizon.
      Have you got any references which show that it was?


      • #
        Graeme No.3

        The idea had been around since the 1950’s, but didn’t take off until the early 1980’s when there was a rise in temperatures. Early converts were James Hansen (USA) and Sir Crispin Tickell. The latter had actually published a book on global cooling but switched. He was one of Thatcher’s senior advisors, career diplomat and British ambassador to the United Nations. Certainly it was at Tickell’s suggestion that Thatcher made her influential speech to the Royal Society at Fishmongers Hall in the City of London, on 27 September 1988.

        Thatcher probably saw the idea as a lead in for nuclear energy and to prevent the Miner’s Union ever being a threat again.


      • #

        I thought it was common knowledge. Here is a good summary. Note That in her more recent book Thatcher denounces the global warming scare, but she certainly used it for her political ends while in power. As noted she set up the CRU Hadley Centre!


        • #

          So someone with some scientific training sets up an agency to do research and then leaves office. Unless you find the part where she ordered them to use pseudoscience or to start cooking the results to favor some warmist theory all you have here is a politician (with more intelligence than most) setting up a scientific agency to get some real answers by using science. Everyone should be in favor of the search for truth. Here in the States we set up NASA and NOAA with good intentions as well and now they appear to have become, like many government agencies, corrupted by power and money. That does not mean that they were not started for good, valid reasons.


    • #

      Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to use man made global warming to her political advantage…

      I would love to see some support of that statement as I don’t recall ever seeing anything linking Thatcher to AGW. I do recall watching the mass takeover of the environmental movement (mainly soft “science” academics and ex-hippies) taken over wholesale by Socialists and Progressives in the 80’s. I believe that readers of this blog are somewhat familiar with Patrick Moore who was in the middle of it.


  • #
    Sceptical Sam

    Oh, the power of hot air.

    Narrabri seems to have been lifted by all that warm air by about 400 kilometres to the northwest over the last 60 years.

    Maybe that accounts for why it’s warmed?



  • #
    Peter Miller

    And that’s precisely why the original temperature figures have to be homogenised.

    You cannot have Joe Public seeing the real figures, or he might start believing there was no need for all those monstrously expensive bureaucracies (and their travel freebies) to investigate ‘climate change’.

    And that would mean those armies of overpaid ‘climate experts’ throughout the western world would be forced to find a real job.

    Perish the thought.

    The climate record is probably riddled with this type of example. The suppression of the original unmanipulated data records has now become top priority for the Global Warming Industry.


  • #
    Gary in Erko

    from the news item –
    “So, when the man in the street says “The seasons are changing,” he’s speaking an actual and important truth – but the sweeping changes, those that affect the earth’s surface greatly, are very slow, and their time scale is measured in thousands of years.”
    It’s nice to read in the newspapers back then, the respect shown towards the perceptions of the man in the street, along with the understanding of appropriate length time spans for the subject. There’s a feeling for scale that we don’t get in today’s climate news items – storm energy four or five magnitudes greater than atom bombs, and Mr Everyman’s 30 years knowledge of weather compared to climate effects ranging over thousands of years. And no recourse to the authority of peer review or PhD-ity.


  • #
    Rod McLean

    On the map of Australia Narrabri seems to have moved south. Has it already started adapting to climate change?

    True Rod. Narrabri snuck over from tomorrows graph. Sceptical Sam noticed too, and you were both right. I put Echuca back in there. If you clear the cache…. 🙂 Sorry! Jo


  • #

    Homogenization makes mud and nothing else.
    There is a distinction to be made between observed and recorded data and the interpretation of that data.

    For the purposes of this essay, data means observations that are empirical.
    Interpretations of this data are not the data.

    To use an example for the purposes of illustrating this idea, take a temperature record from Death Valley.

    The temperatures recorded are the data.
    A maximum recorded temperature for a day is that and only that.
    The minimum recorded temperature for a day is that and only that.
    An analysis which attempts to create an ‘average temperature’ is an interpretation and is not data.

    If the measurements are done badly, they are not data on the temperature, though it may comprise data concerning bad workmanship. It can not be used for anything connected to weather or climate because it failed to record data on that subject.

    A record of min/max readings is data. It records minimum and maximum temperatures for the time they are taken. From these data one can produce a chart showing trends in minimum and maximum temperatures.
    One can not produce a chart of average temperatures. There is no such data.

    If measurements are taken at a certain time of day, then a record is produced of temperatures at that time of day. That’s what the data is. It is not a record of average temperatures, of average precipitation, of cloud cover- or anything else that it is not. It is only what it is.

    If a temperature record is converted to anomalies, it is still data. It’s form of representation has changed but it is the same data. It doesn’t matter what number is subtracted from each recorded datum, the data, itself, is intact.
    One may chart the anomalies to display a trend. Whether one uses raw data or anomalies, the chart is identical because the relationships among the data are intact.

    A record of min/max readings can be used to produce a chart of trends. It can produce a chart of minimum readings over time. It can be used to produce a chart of maximum readings over time. It can not produce a chart of average temperatures that count as data. Interpretation of that sort requires unproven assumptions. Extrapolation of assumptions does not produce data. It produces an interpretation. Only if there are no unproven assumptions in the analysis will it produce data. Interpretations of proxies are not data.

    In the above example, the trend (over some specified period) is data. There are no assumptions involved in the representation of the data. The data has not been interpreted, massaged or tortured; only observed.

    While the example given was for Death Valley, now consider a similar record from Vostok.
    The Vostok record has nothing to do with the Death Valley record.
    Averaging a temperature in Vostok with a temperature in Death Valley is completely chimeric. It is not data. One might argue that it’s absurdity is beyond parody.

    However, one can certainly create a chart showing a temperature trend in Vostok which is data, just as can be done with Death Valley data.
    If one calculates trends of minimum temperatures (or 6AM temperatures, or maximum temperatures, or noon time temperatures) for various sites, then one may legitimately average trends for sites in any specified region for a specified period.

    How well that region may be represented by the sites used can be argued, but because there has been no unproven assumption involved, such an average is still data- subject to the context that defines it, e.g., “for the region represented by sites x, y and z, for the period N, the average trend is Q”. In such a form, the data can be used to show a regional trend but that does not mean there is a regional trend at all.
    If one part of the region trends upward and another part trends downward, the average may show no trend. This is the ‘statistician fallacy’ expressed as ‘head in the oven, feet in the freezer – but on average, fine!’. It’s not fine.

    An alternative is to produce the trends for each site and then map the sites with similar trends to see IF there are regions where sites have similar trends and compare the map of these regions if they do.

    An average trend composed of Death Valley data and Vostok data is not a global temperature average. It is an average of Death Vally and Vostok only. It’s not data.
    Death Valley and Vostok are as different as fish and fowl.
    The average limb length of a fish and a bird can not be used for anything.
    It can not tell you trends in limb growth in a world of mammals. It can not tell you what to expect if you haul in a net. It is, in fact, purely chimeric fantasy. It is the current state of climate statistics. It is not reality; it is computer graphics only.

    Data’s All, Folks!


    • #
      Peter Carabot

      Love it!


    • #
      Bog Cog

      I thought this comment was too long to read until I saw Peter’s comment and then took the time to read it and I am glad I did.
      This is the best comment I have ever read.
      Basically, the raw data is the data and everything else is an interpretation based on assumptions.
      Jo, with Gnomish’s consent this comment should be a post on its own so kore will read it and sent to every journo and scientist in the land.


    • #

      Well said. I’ve tried to make this point before but you’ve done a far, far better job than I ever could. I always tend to engineering analogies. No factory on the planet would use the methods climate scientists use to analyze the performance of any temperature dependent process. If they did, wildly varying product quality would most likely be the downfall of the endeavor.


  • #

    Eastern Australia was in rainfall deficit from around 1895 till around 1947. Shortly after the drenchings of the 50s – remember 1950 and 1956 especially! – Australia entered its longest (though not worst) drought. Sydney experienced its worst heatwave in 1960, the same year as the hemisphere’s official record daily max. Drought and fire seemed the only prospect by 1967. Then along came those storming 70s, Australia’s wettest month in Jan 1974, wettest year in 1974…as well as lots of other freaky records for wetness from ’73 to ’76. Of course, in 1983 you had the opposite problem…

    It’s odd that those experts who are most keen to detect trends are less likely than the bloke in the street to grasp the single most important thing about trends.

    Trends end.


  • #

    In the days before super computers men still thought of the bigger things causing the variablity in the weather and the climate –


    (From the South Australian Register.)

    Mr. WATERHOUSE, the naturalist who accompanied Mr. Stuart in his last expedition, announced in his report that he believed ” the cradle of the hot winds” was in that part of South Australia which lies between Chambers’s Creek and the northern boundary of the colony. But the doubtful honour thus con- ferred upon South Australia is based on very slender grounds. The probability is that we have no right to it, and that the idea of the hot winds being generated, to be occasionally let loose, at a spot not far from Chambers’s Creek, is as unfounded as the theory which used to attribute all winds to the active interference of a mythological deity, who kept breezes, gales and hurricanes imprisoned in a mountain until he wanted them, either to serve his friends or serve out his enemies.
    Mr. Waterhouse observed how barren and waterless were the plains in the country which he speaks of, and how heated the atmosphere became in the fierce rays of a January sun. Such a place might well deserve to be designated the home of the hot winds. But it appears, from some statements which are con- tained in Mr. Earl’s book on North Australia, that we have to look further than this province for the origin of those fearful blasts which occasionally sweep over the colonies, darkening the air with their stifling clouds of dust, and causing bush fires to leap up in all directions. North-west Australia it seems, is the country where we must look to for these visitations, and not only will they be found to originate there, but according to Mr. Earl, their periodical severity may be foretold and provided against by an attention to the laws which regulate the winds of the Indian Ocean. That writer says:-” When the north-west monsoon is strong, which happens usually at intervals of three years, it sets in with a fresh breeze and heavy rain-squalls, and advances steadily into the interior, thoroughly moistening the surface of the earth. There are also grounds for supposing that it drives the heated air before it, thus causing the hot winds which affect all the southern colonies at this season; for it is certain that the hot winds in South Australia, New South Wales, and Victoria, are most felt when the north-west monsoon is stronger than usual.” The important points here mentioned are, that the north-west monsoon is more severe than usual every three years, and that it is certain the hot winds of these colonies are unusually strong when the monsoon is strong. It follows from this, that if we knew at what date the last severe gales blew in north-west Australia we should he able to tell when an unusual visitation of hot winds might be expected on this side the continent. Seasons like those in which our Black Thursdays and Black Mondays have occurred might be prepared for, whilst provision might be made to mitigate one of their effects.
    If what Mr. Earl states is correct — and he seems to speak with some authority — our hot winds are a continuation of the monsoons, and may therefore be looked for in great strength at those periods when the triennial gales from the north-west are blowing on the opposite side of the continent. This is at least a matter which deserves investigation. Meteorological observations in North Australia may do much towards explaining the peculiarities of our own climate; and in the event of an overland telegraph being established, it is possible that we may have the means of forestalling many changes of the weather which now come upon us suddenly.

    Mr. Todd, we find, is taking steps to obtain some reliable information as to the meteorology of North Australia, and is also keeping an accutrate record of the directions of the wind throughout the year as observed in Adelaide. If this had been properly done for a series of years, some means would have been available for testing the theory of Mr. Earl as to the periodicity of our hot winds. At present we only know from general experience that our very bad summers have occurred at something like regular intervals, and so far this seems to confirm Mr. Earl’s statement.

    In the meteorological report for 1862, which is now published, there is a table showing the number of times the wind blew from each point of the compass at different hours of the day. From this return it appears that in the summer season east winds prevail during the night, and south-west winds during the day ; while in the winter season the north-east is the prevailing wind, except for a few hours in the afternoon, when a sea breeze sets in. With regard to the north wind, the returns show that 1862 was a very favourable year for those who dislike hot weather. It is shown that during the six months of summer there was a sea breeze in the afternoon on 121 days in 1862, and that the wind blew from southerly or cool points on 156 days as against 20 days when it was from northerly or hot points.

    These observations, made in Adelaide, which is certainly not the coolest part of South Australia, may undeceive persons who, on the strength of Mr. Waterhouse’s statement, or from other causes, have given the colony the credit of being the home of the hot winds. During the last year or two these disagreeable visitors have troubled us but very little. Doubtless they will some day make amends for all deficiency in this respect. But in the meantime we shall gain something if we can become acquainted with their origin or can ascertain by what laws they are regulated. A very wet winter and spring will, no doubt, of themselves help to modify the heat of the following summer. But notwithstanding this, the statement of Mr. Earl, that when the monsoons are strong the hot winds are also strong, may be quite true. What is wanted for putting this to the test is some accurate information relative to the periodical winds of North Australia. When this is obtained, as we hope it will be before long, comparison can be made with the winds which blow on this side of the continent, and the question whether our climate is affected by that of North Australia will then be set at rest.

    We need hardly say, that something more than mere curiosity is involved in this inquiry. It may lead to a knowledge of important facts which would have a bearing on such questions as the cultivation of the soil and the protection of the community from sickness. To be weather-wise, in a scientific point of view, is now-a-days becoming a necessity in all parts of the world, and in Australia there are special reasons why the subject should not be neglected either by the government or the people.


    Now we have ‘settled science™’ and history from trove.


  • #

    “There is no evidence that the change is altering.”

    Precisely. Then and now.


  • #

    Great quote from the Prime Minister of India

    “Prime Minister Narendra Modi had a three part answer to a question on Teachers’ Day about combating climate change. In one part he said, ‘Climate change has not occurred. People have changed”

    Climate change has not occured. People have changed. Love it.


  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Once upon a time…

    That must have been before there was fame and fortune to be had from crying, wolf, all the time.


  • #

    The time frame.

    The time frame.

    The time frame you Climate Science dummies.

    How can any knowledgeable scientist claim to be a Climate Modeler or predictor or commentator when the time frame is seen as unimportant.

    Many here comment on the known churning cycles of the oceans and I must admit I know little or nothing about those; terms like El Nino and PDO has little meaning for me but I know by the sensible comments here that they are very important.

    Likewise the imperatives of orbital mechanics suggest that something very interesting is going to happen to the climate very 13,000 years and every 26,000 years and the big one every 110,000 years (just ask Neanderthal man).

    There are so many things wrong with Klimate Science that it is hard to know where to start when criticizing it.

    Maybe it’s the money speaking?



  • #

    The CSIRO: home of science denial.

    The question is not that we have 11 [such periods of cooling in the surveyed period] but why don’t we have more of them,” Dr Howden said.
    “If it wasn’t for human influence of greenhouse gas emissions, we’d actually have a lot more.”

    > So, we are preventing more cold periods? That’s gotta be good.

    “The paper said periods of slowing growth or even drops in temperatures had been taken up by climate sceptics to raise doubts about the link between rising concentrations of greenhouse gases and warming.”

    > The CSIRO denies there has been a hiatus in warming despite rising emissions?

    CSIRO almost 100% sure humans causing temperatures to rise
    Date: September 4, 2014

    “The CSIRO researchers noted that public acceptance in human-induced climate change and confidence in the supporting science has declined since 2007.”
    . . .
    So what do the doomsday scientists do?

    Award themselves prizes for communication:

    “Lesley Hughes, from Macquarie University, was awarded the Australian Government Eureka Prize for Promoting Understanding of Australian Science Research.

    Her free online course explains the science of climate change in straightforward terms for non-scientists – and has even received praise from some climate sceptics, who found they had been lacking a clear explanation of the science.”

    . . .
    Keep up the good work, Prof. Hughes.


    • #

      Seriously, the course is free!


      Macquarie Uni
      Find out how climate change will affect us, why we should care about it, and what solutions we can employ.

      Course starts on:15/09/2014
      Course ends on:14/10/2014

      What’s it about?

      Climate change is the biggest global challenge the human race has ever faced.
      Our insatiable demand for energy from fossil fuels is changing the atmosphere, and in turn changing our climate.
      Climate change is already affecting the physical surface of the earth, the environment that provides our life support, our food supply, economy and society.
      These changes will accelerate over the next few decades

      What’s involved?

      MODULE 1
      10 videos, 9 quizzes, 1 assessment 15 Sep – 21 Sep
      MODULE 2
      10 videos, 9 quizzes, 1 assessment 22 Sep – 28 Sep
      MODULE 3
      8 videos, 7 quizzes, 1 assessment 29 Sep – 5 Oct
      MODULE 4
      10 videos, 9 quizzes, 1 assessment 6 Oct – 12 Oct


      • #

        “These changes will accelerate over the next few decades”

        Still no conclusive evidence for some 25 years since the Paul Ehrlich ‘predictions’? I’m getting tired of waiting.


        • #
          the Griss

          “Climate change is already affecting the physical surface of the earth, the environment that provides our life support, our food supply, economy and society.”

          But they are happening….

          Crop yields have increased very significantly. 🙂

          And the really ridiculous response to the non-problem of climate change is already having devastation economic impacts. 🙁


      • #

        I guess Salby won’t be running the course.


        • #

          I should elaborate for those that have not followed this one:

          Atmospheric physicist Murry Salby – an AGW dissenter – produced a serious analysis that undermines key assumptions underpinning the AGW worldview. In April 2013, concluding a European tour to present his research, Salby arrived at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris for a flight back to Australia, where he was a Professor of Climate Science at Macquarie University. He discovered, to his dismay, that the university had cancelled the return leg of his non-refundable ticket. With Salby stranded, Macquarie then undertook misconduct proceedings against him that swiftly culminated in his dismissal. The university claimed that it did not sack Salby for his climate views but rather because he failed to “fulfill his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach” and because he violated “University policies in relation to travel and use of University resources.”


  • #

    Bendigo cools off every time I go near the place.


  • #
    Ursus Augustus

    Slightly off topic and more to the Rutherglen cooling/warming, one Dr Michael Brown, an astrophysicist from Monash, weighed in on behalf of BOM in the Fairfax press referring dismissively to “pseudo science” just not getting that there is some phenomenon as “artificial cooling” which of course explains it all so nothing to see folks, move along etc.

    Of course this “artificial cooling” is not even characterised in general nature let alone explained even at high school level and the article is essentially a polemic shoulder to the wheel to help Team BOM.

    So I ask myself why? Not Brown’s field but he could get across the basics pretty easily so why not simply be an independent voice of reason and rational explanation?

    Curiouser and curiouser. Serving Kool Ade in the Monash staff room?


  • #

    Victoria projects into the roaring forties on a large peninsula, well South of all other land mass except Tasmania. The only hot dry wind is from the North. So a slight wind change and the temperature drops massively. Sydney by comparison is buffered by an entire continent on the West and the only cool wind is from the South, so most winds are hot.

    Worse for Melbourne, strong Northerlies only come at the end of an anticyclonic high pressure system which has just passed and they are followed immediately by a cyclonic depression with strong cold Southerlies, to the temperature drop is Melbourne is always dramatic.

    What this means is that predicting even a days’s weather in Melbourne is impossible, except that high temperatures will not last long. The typical view of statistics is that if you average over a long period of time, things become predictable. They don’t. One summer can be utterly different to another, a series of seemingly random events which add up to a very different summer every year or even a drought. The same for England, so dependent on the Gulf Stream.

    Overall the profiteers of doom depend on two ridiculous ideas. Things should be average and predictable and well behaved all the time. Anything else is by definition an extreme event and someone’s fault. Rainfall should always be average or above. Secondly, they think if one area gets steadily slightly warmer over time, steady cooling is not possible nearby. It is. Local variations can be so large that they mask trends, which may not in fact exist.

    You would have to think that it would be easier to model predict the path of a rag in a clothes washer than to predict the weather, but scientists create models and others insist they can tell you the future with accuracy. If the computer models cannot predict El Nino or La Nina, how can they predict anything long term? They are not only busted, it is a wonder anyone believes them when it is proven they cannot model the past or the future and can barely cope with tomorrow. Just read the disclaimer on tomorrow’s weather prediction.


  • #


    2012: TheNewsPakistan: Arshad H Abbasi: Melting of Siachen glacier — don’t blame global warming
    Siachen is the only Glacier of Karakorum range melting with unprecedented rate, the cause of which is the military presence in the area and not global warming. The high-resolution images of the Siachen glacier show deep cracks every 10 feet (crevasses), both in longitudinal and transverse directions. The retreat of the glacier is also visible by horizontal expansion of glacial lakes throughout the glacier, but the most alarming sign is the vertical thinning of glaciers, which is aggravating the widening of crevasses at a massive scale.
    India’s and Pakistan’s claim over Siachen glacier has turned the region into the highest battleground on Earth. Since, April 1984, both the countries have maintained permanent military presence up to the height of over 22,500 ft. To facilitate the forces to defend their position, both countries, especially India, has developed cantonments, forward base-camps, training schools, aviation workshops and huge ammunition storages in the area. The infrastructure, including several bunkers has also been developed by cutting and melting of glacial ice through chemicals. To facilitate troops, in the inhospitable terrain and extreme weather conditions, a kerosene pipeline has also been laid down on main glaciers by the Indian Army. Kerosene is then supplied for stoves provided at every igloo (post) for heating and cooking purposes…
    Military presence had raised the temperature of the glacier i.e. prior to the occupation it was 2.6 C which rose to 10.2 C 1991…
    ***In subsequent years the related data was not made public…

    ***obviously Chomsky hasn’t bothered to investigate the Siachen Glacier data. comments are hilarious:

    9 Sept: BillMoyers.com: Noam Chomsky : Are We Approaching the End of Human History?
    The likely end of the era of civilization is foreshadowed in a new draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the generally conservative monitor of what is happening to the physical world…
    The IPCC report reaffirms that the “vast majority” of known fuel reserves must be left in the ground to avert intolerable risks to future generations. Meanwhile the major energy corporations make no secret of their goal of exploiting these reserves and discovering new ones…
    One of the most feared consequences of anthropogenic global warming is the thawing of permafrost regions. A study in Science magazine warns that “even slightly warmer temperatures [less than anticipated in coming years] could start melting permafrost, which in turn threatens to trigger the release of huge amounts of greenhouse gases trapped in ice,” with possible “fatal consequences” for the global climate.
    ***Arundhati Roy suggests that the “most appropriate metaphor for the insanity of our times” is the Siachen Glacier, where Indian and Pakistani soldiers have killed each other on the highest battlefield in the world. The glacier is now melting and revealing “thousands of empty artillery shells, empty fuel drums, ice axes, old boots, tents and every other kind of waste that thousands of warring human beings generate” in meaningless conflict. And as the glaciers melt, India and Pakistan face indescribable disaster.
    Sad species. Poor Owl.
    COMMENT by –
    Jack Wolf: It will be worse. Far worse.
    Innocent Jogger: A piece like this makes me wonder why more “progressives” who share Chomsky’s bleak worldview aren’t preppers.
    Brett Greshko: Because intelligent people don’t see much point in existing in a post apocalyptic world


    • #
      Glen Michel

      Chomsky could be right about human history but for the wrong reasons: reasons left to ones own views regarding the decay of the ages.True enquiry and pursuit of wisdom have left us.All that remains is self-indulgent frippery.


  • #

    you have to wonder if the CAGW academics ever get out into the real world!

    10 Sept: Yahoo: Dylan Stapleford: Summer snow blankets Rockies from Canada to Colorado
    A cold front pouring down from Canada sent low temperatures dipping into the 30s from Alberta to the northern Rockies. As much as 14 inches of snow has fallen in Calgary since Monday, weather officials say, knocking down trees and powerlines, snarling traffic and delaying flights at the city’s airport…
    In Colorado, snow fell in the upper elevations, covering mountain passes and ski areas not scheduled to open for weeks…

    9 Sept: Bloomberg: Brian K. Sullivan: Cold to Grip Northern U.S. Offers Preview of Coming Chill
    Cold is about to sweep into the northern U.S. Plains from Canada and drop temperatures to winter-like levels…
    ***That will be a welcome change for energy traders after a mild summer, although it’s just a glimpse of what may come…
    From July 1 through yesterday, the temperature dropped into the 20s at least 23 times across the contiguous U.S., according to the Weather Prediction Center in College Park, Maryland. Stanley, Idaho, posted the lowest temperature in the U.S. six times followed by Bodie State Park, California, which had the lowest mark four times…


  • #

    Somebody please ring the BOM and tell them their statistical ‘adjustments’ to make them consistent with ‘other international organisations’, which methodology is signed off by people on the other side of the world, doesn’t match the historical records written by people who were actually there.

    And somebody please explain to the BOM how to do investigative cross-checking.


  • #

    10 Sept: BillMoyers.com: Charina Nadura: Carbon is Costing Us Big Time
    From Hurricane Sandy to Typhoon Haiyan to the severe droughts currently underway in states like California and Texas — and countries such as Colombia, Pakistan, Somalia, Australia, Guatemala, China and Kenya — people are seriously suffering as extreme climate-related disasters start to feel like the new normal…
    How did we get here? This three minute video by the Climate Reality Project provides a brief history of the carbon boom and global warming, as well as an explanation of how carbon is costing us in more ways than we might think..

    the alarmist crowd obviously don’t even read the CAGW-infest Bloomberg!

    10 Sept: Bloomberg: Brian K. Sullivan: No Named Storms First Time Since 1992 at Hurricane Peak
    The statistical peak of the Atlantic hurricane season has arrived and for the first time since 1992 there isn’t a named storm in the basin…
    In records going back to 1851, Sept. 10 is the day when the odds are greatest there will be at least one tropical storm or hurricane somewhere in the Atlantic…
    Bell said the Atlantic is a little cooler than it has been in past years and if a shift began, it might look something like the current year…
    “But we are still ahead of the ridiculously quiet season of 2013,” he said. “I would say that we need at least one more quiet year to really be convinced that we are heading into an inactive era.” …


  • #

    meant to type CAGW-infestED Bloomberg…


  • #
    Adrian O

    NO, NO, NO! Climate change didn’t start in the 1950’s.


    François Villon, 1461
    Où sont les neiges d’antan?
    Where are the the snows of yesteryear?

    (Lost in translation:
    Ç’est de charbon
    Le dioxide…
    it’s the CO2 which we exhale, and the methane from the cows)


    • #

      I remember that quote too from one of my favourite books , Catch 22 ,in relation to rear gunner Snowden. er i think!
      This global warming business has sweet fanny adams to do with Australian weather,I know everyone wants to discuss weather but it is needs to be trivialised in relation to the alleged energy imbalance which is boiling our oceans and killing plankton as we contemplate our navels!Or could they have got the original math wrong?


  • #

    some of you may have read anthony’s thread the other day:

    WUWT: District attorney becomes ‘noble cause corrupted’, drops charges against climate activists

    well, here is the new media darling DA Sam Sutter on Democracy Now. lots more at the link, including the fact Sutter was one of the few to bother watching the CAGW propaganda series, “Years of Living Dangerously”!

    VIDEO: 10 Sept: Democracy Now: Exclusive: DA Joins the Climate Activists He Declined to Prosecute, Citing Danger of Global Warming
    SAM SUTTER: Well, I can tell you that I started wrestling with exactly how I was going to accomplish the various goals that I had on this case as we got closer to trial, and actually reached the decision over the weekend through several discussions with some top people in my office, all of whom, I believe, share my views on climate change…
    SAM SUTTER: Well, first about the decision, and then about my point of view and whether it was unusual or not. So, we thought about reporting part of the case to the appeals court, because we were not sure that the criminal court had jurisdiction of the motorboat charges. But that was not met with a positive reception, really, by either the judge or the defense attorneys. So then we had to try to come up with a resolution of the case that met several concerns—obviously, number one, my duty to uphold the law. So I can be in great sympathy with the protesters, but I do have a duty to uphold the law. Secondly, the interests of those in Somerset who had to foot the bill. That’s the taxpayers of Somerset. But then, finally, my moral position on this issue. So, through a very open discussion, which I like very much, there was a synthesis, and we came up with what I thought was really the ideal resolution. This was an act of civil disobedience, so this should be treated as a civil infraction. And I was extremely pleased when we broached the idea with the defense attorneys and they embraced it…
    NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Dean Sutter [sic], can you—sorry, District Attorney Sutter, can you explain what kind of response you’ve received, both to your decision as well as to your speech outside the courthouse?
    SAM SUTTER: Well, it’s been a humbling response and an inspiring one. I don’t think I’ve ever received—maybe the night that I won district attorney, I might have received cheers that loud and that energetic, but it was just a wonderful, wonderful feeling. And the response since, all the requests for interviews, it really has kind of taken me aback, because I think that my position is a reasonable one in view of the data that I’ve looked at, the conversations that I’ve had with individuals more expert than I am. We’re at a crisis point. And I do believe—with all respect for the political leadership, I do believe that there are not enough political leaders speaking out boldly on this issue….
    I mean, as I read in Professor McKibben’s article in Rolling Stone, on a sunny day, Germany is getting half of its energy from solar. On a normal day, Texas is getting a third of its energy from wind. Those are the kinds of situations that need to take place globally…



  • #

    8 Sept: Bloomberg: Ehren Goossens: Sharp Seeks Sale of U.S Solar Developer Recurrent Energy
    Sharp Corp., the Japanese electronics maker, is seeking to sell its U.S. solar-energy development unit Recurrent Energy.
    Sharp has retained Bank of Nova Scotia to help shop San Francisco-based Recurrent, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg. Profit in Osaka-based Sharp’s energy unit plunged 97 percent in its first fiscal quarter as residential solar sales slumped in Japan.
    The sale would be Sharp’s latest step back from the solar industry. The company stopped making panels in the U.S. and U.K. this year and pulled out of an Italian panel-manufacturing joint venture…


  • #

    the MSM CAGW story of the day – already hundreds of media outlets carrying it, but i chose this for the great headline!

    10 Sept: TheJournalIreland: AFP: The ozone hole is recovering so well it’s adding to global warming
    UN agencies had some news about the environment today.
    In their first review in four years on Earth’s vital shield, UN agencies said a 1987 treaty to protect the ozone layer was so successful it was indirectly adding to problems in another area — global warming…


  • #


    It’s true! It’s true! The crown has made it clear.
    The climate must be perfect all the year.

    A law was made a distant moon ago here:
    July and August cannot be too hot.
    And there’s a legal limit to the snow here
    In Camelot.
    The winter is forbidden till December
    And exits March the second on the dot.
    By order, summer lingers through September
    In Camelot.