IPCC Gate Du Jour: Aussie Droughtgate

Map of the Murray-Darling Basin - Wikimedia

Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun digs up another issue with non peer reviewed World Wildlife Fund reports in the IPCC AR4. It turns out a new paper in GRL handily disputes the cause of the drought.

He writes:

Melbourne University alarmist David Karoly once claimed a rise in the Murray Darling Basin’s temperatures was “likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human acitivity” and:

This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd grabbed the scare and exploited it:

BRENDAN Nelson was yesterday accused of being “blissfully immune” to the effects of climate change after he said the crisis in the Murray-Darling Basin was not linked to global warming…

In parliament yesterday, Kevin Rudd attacked Dr Nelson, accusing him of ignoring scientific facts.

“You need to get with the science on this,” the Prime Minister said. “Look at the technical report put together by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology.”

But the latest evidence shows that Rudd and Karoly were wrong. In fact, there’s no evidence in the Murray Darling drought of man-made warming, says a new study in Geophysical Research Letters, this new study:

Previous studies of the recent drought in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) have noted that low rainfall totals have been accompanied by anomalously high air temperatures. Subsequent studies have interpreted an identified trend in the residual timeseries of non-rainfall related temperature variability as a signal of anthropogenic change, further speculating that increased air temperature has exacerbated the drought through increasing evapotranspiration rates. In this study, we explore an alternative explanation of the recent increases in air temperature. This study demonstrates that significant misunderstanding of known processes of land surface – atmosphere interactions has led to the incorrect attribution of the causes of the anomalous temperatures, as well as significant misunderstanding of their impact on evaporation within the Murray-Darling Basin…

However, to accept the correlation [between temperature and rainfall] as the sole basis for the attribution of cause to human emissions is to implicitly assume that the correlation represents an entirely correct model of the sole driver of maximum air temperature. This is clearly not the case.

What’s causing the evaporation and temperatures is not (man-made) warming. It’s kind of the other way around: more sunshine, through lack of cloud cover, and lack of rain and therefore evaporation is causing higher temperatures.

And guess which scandal-ridden and alarmist IPCC report relied on Karoly’s claims? Reader Baa Humbug:

Karoly was cited very extensively in the AR4 WG1 paper.e.g. Chapter 9 9.4.2.3 Studies Based on Indices of Temperature Change and Temperature-Precipitation Relationships.”Studies based on indices of temperature change support the robust detection of human influence on continental-scale land areas. Observed trends in indices of North American continental scale temperature change, (including the regional mean, the mean land-ocean temperature contrast and the annual cycle) were found by Karoly et al. (2003) to be generally consistent with simulated trends under historical forcing from greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols during the second half of the 20th century. In contrast, they find only a small likelihood of agreement with trends driven by natural forcing only during this period.

About these ads
This entry was posted in IPCC. Bookmark the permalink.

167 Responses to IPCC Gate Du Jour: Aussie Droughtgate

  1. Queenslander! says:

    In fact check BOM rainfal data- there’s no long term decrease in rainfall in Murray-Darling- in fact it’s slightly wetter than 110 years ago!
    Liar, liar.

  2. twawki says:

    Can anyone find anything, just something that may be even close to the truth in the IPCC reports !

  3. Rastus says:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=T

    In truth the trend of rainfall in the Murray Draling Basin over 110 years up…according to the BOM that is.

    But then thats using real live data measurements rather than models tricked up by Karoly and Krew

  4. Mike Bryant says:

    At first I thought that the problem with the CO2=CAGW hypothesis was that all the studies were based on the fraudulent temperature numbers from GISS, HADCRU and GHCN, However it is becoming clearer and clearer that these studies don’t have to rely on those fraudulent databases since each scientific study relies on “in house” fraud.

  5. Chris in Tropical Australia says:

    twawki
    “Can anyone find anything, just something that may be even close to the truth in the IPCC reports !”

    IF the reports have a date of issue, the date could be OK ???

  6. mercurior says:

    how many wheels are left on this AR4 wagon left. every day something new is wrong. I am waiting for everything to be discounted but the word Lie. And even then they would say its still a valid report.

  7. FergalR says:

    Ro-busted again.

    Not sure if the Australian “sure wild camels emit GHG’s but only killing domesticated animals counts as a reduction so we won’t cull them” story has been posted.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/feral-camels-clear-in-penny-wongs-carbon-count/story-e6frg6nf-1225827641354

  8. DirkH says:

    “But the latest evidence that Rudd and Karoly were wrong.”
    You should insert a “shows” there.

    Reply: done. ~ ctm

  9. Patrick Davis says:

    “Queenslander! (00:20:36) :

    In fact check BOM rainfal data- there’s no long term decrease in rainfall in Murray-Darling- in fact it’s slightly wetter than 110 years ago!
    Liar, liar.”

    It is interesting isn’t it that 110 years, or even as little as 50 years, ago there weren’t ~50,000 farmers drawing water along the basin. But who controls water rights? Why State Govn’t of course.

  10. Phillip Bratby says:

    “generally consistent with simulated trends”. No science done here. Just use the models which show no natural forcing. GIGO.

  11. PaulsNZ says:

    The real truth is that the RUDD government has BET huge amounts of Australians money, assets on the CARBON CREDIT FRAUD, if he can’t find a hole in nature to PROVE AGW then he will invent one!. When he fails and the BIG BET is called in we will calling Australia , 我们性交.

  12. dearieme says:

    This is a new paper, so we need time to elapse to see whether critical scrutiny reveals any shortcomings. This is true in general of all papers disapproved of by Global Warmmongers but not, of course, of any paper that meets with their warm approval, since all such papers are, necessarily, science-settling.

  13. Baa Humbug says:

    For our non-Aussie readers, Dr Nelson is the former opposition leader in Oz politics.

    The gist of the paper (Natalie Lockart et al 2009) is that a 2degC increase in temps caused evapotranspiration of 0.076mm per day but increased sunshine hours (SSH) (average extra 1.5hrs per day) caused 0.32mm evapotranspiration per day. here is an extract from the paper.

    5. Relative Influence of Temperature and SSH
    on Actual Evapotranspiration

    [21] The relative roles of air temperature and SSH on
    evapotranspiration rates can be approximated through simple
    calculations. The 2002 drought had an extra 1.5 hours of
    bright sunshine per day than the 1952–2008 average. Using
    the PBL model under wet land surface conditions and forced
    with typical sunny conditions, the average actual evapotranspiration
    was simulated. On average, an extra 1.5 hours of
    bright sunshine, instead of the alternative cloudy conditions,
    provides approximately 0.32mm of additional evapotranspiration.
    In contrast, an increase in air temperature of 2degC
    causes only an additional 0.076 mm of evapotranspiration
    over the entire day.

    [22] It is therefore apparent that the increased occurrence
    of direct solar insolation by 1.5 hours per day is more hydrologically
    significant than the additional evapotranspiration
    loss given an increase in temperature of 2degC. It is therefore
    clear that increased air temperatures play a relatively minor
    role in driving evapotranspiration.

  14. Michael In Sydney says:

    Turnbull is crossing the floor tomorrow but I think Rudd might wish he didn’t and just let this TAX fade away. If Rudd goes to the electorate with an ETS he will struggle. The tide of opinion has turned against an ETS in Australia.

  15. Stuart H says:

    Interesting that you mention David Karoly, he is the reason I started to look deeper into the science behind AGW. After I saw him on a pseudo debate after the great global warming swindle on the ABC in Australia a few years ago I thought he conducted himself in a terrible way. In comparison Bob Carter came across as a genuine scientist who made clear and concise points arguing against AGW.

    So thanks Mr Karoly you made me see the holes in the AGW science through your clearly agenda driven, biased, ranting and immature attitude.

  16. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Indeed, the pattern for rainfall over the whole of Australia shows the last decade as the second wettest since 1900.

    http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii14/sherro_2008/Rainfallto2010.jpg?t=1265620723

    Sure, there are pockets of drought somewhere most years and some can be quite heartbreaking. But to blame them on global warming …..?

    That was a wonderful catch-all, to say that global warming will cause an increased incidence of severe events. Unfortunately, the GCM resolution/projection is not good enough for the scale mentioned above.

    The good Prof David would have a brain able to occupy a week long conference on psychiatry, to use the “Fawlty Towers” comment. It’s quite spooky to see the missionary zeal in his eyes when he gets the fever. Another one of these youngsters, a child of flower power, who grew up tooo fast for the real science.

  17. Kate says:

    The Express seems to have taken the view that man-made global warming is a fraud. Meanwhile, on the political front, the global warming machine keeps running, with British MPs calling on the Government to consider a carbon tax of £100+ a ton to “force down greenhouse gases”.
    This is from today’s paper:

    GLOBAL WARMING TO BECOME GLOBAL COOLING, CLAIMS EXPERT
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/156811/Global-warming-to-become-global-cooling-claims-expert
    February 8, 2010
    [Extract]

    Citing predictions by climatologists in the 1970s of a new Ice Age, economics Professor Beenstock from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem said: “I predict that ­climatologists will look equally foolish in the years to come. Indeed, it may be already happening.”

    Professor Michael Beenstock said theories of climate change are wrong. He warned climatologists have misused statistics, leading them to the mistaken conclusion global warming is ­evidence of the greenhouse effect. He told London’s Cass Business School that the link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures is “spurious”, adding: “The greenhouse effect is an illusion.”

    The professor said that just because greenhouse gases and temperatures have risen together does not mean they are linked. He claims that the real cause of ­rising temperatures is the sun, which he says is at its hottest for over 1,000 years but is “beginning to stabilise”. Professor Beenstock said: “If the sun’s heat continues to remain stable, and if carbon emissions continue to grow with the rate of growth of the world economy, global temperatures will fall by about 0.5ºC by 2050.”

    Meanwhile, Professor Phil Jones from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit – the expert at the ­centre of the Climategate scandal – said he had considered suicide and had death threats over leaked emails which appeared to show ­scientists rigging the data. Prof Jones, 57, has stood down ­during a probe and accepts he should have worded some of his emails differently. But he added: “I stand 100 per cent behind the science. I did not manipulate or fabricate any data.”

  18. Tenuc says:

    I’m surprised that no-one challenged the alarmist CO2 warming claims based on history. Many major drought in the Murray Darling Basin area of New South Wales are common long man-made CO2 started to rise significantly.

    1789-91 Drought in New South Wales (NSW).
    1798-99 Drought in NSW that produced severe crop failures.
    1803 Drought in NSW that produced severe crop failures.
    1809 Beginning of an unusually severe drought in NSW that continued until 1811.
    1813-15 Severe drought in NSW that prompted searches for new pastures.
    1826-29 Severe drought in NSW – Lake George and Darling River dried up.
    1850 Severe drought, with big losses of livestock across inland NSW.
    1864 – 66 (and 1868) – severe drought NSW.
    1888 New South Wales had the driest year since records began.

    This has to be the last straw for the credibility of the IPCC and Rudd et al.

  19. gerard says:

    Sea Levels will truly rise due to the tears of the true believers when they realise that they have been conned by the IPCC and their elected representatives.

  20. CodeTech says:

    twawki, as has been pointed out, the page numbering seems accurate…

    Funny how all these things are suddenly coming to light now! I’m sure people knew about these but were sitting on them. I wish “we” had had a clearinghouse of errors that “we” could have pointed people to summarizing all of this before.

    Climategate: the gift that keeps on giving. There aren’t many more wheels left to fall off of that wagon…

  21. Christopher Hanley says:

    Tossing in “robust” certainly adds authenticity.

  22. Rhys Jaggar says:

    What caused the great drought at the beginning of th 20th century, then?

    There wasn’t ‘man-made global warming’ then, was there??

  23. Capn Jack says:

    If there is anything Aussie science should know about it’s drought.

    The Murray Darling Basin has water issues because of water licenses, not drought.

    A lot of people would leave the MDB and farm in the tropics if we opened them, with good water, but Kevin thicky Rudd thicky wont allow pastoral or intense ag development.

    Look up the federation drought, if people need to see what a big drought is.

    IN the areas I once worked, instead of bleating they developed first minimum till and then zero till to lock moisture into clay soils. It does not work that well on sandy loan country.

    People have learnt in drought years to lock mositure profiles in from the heavy storm rains, might not get much of a winter crop but a bit of luck in commodity price and a reasonable year is made..

    For a so called country boy Kevin Rudd talks out his arse hat.

  24. GK says:

    It matters not…. the criminal MSM media here in Australia is covering for PM Rudd. Instead, the news media here is printing stories how PM Rudd is telling Australians that the conservative opposition’s climate policy is “fiscally reckless”.

    There is no mention of this in the MSM media. Nor will there be. Criminals work together.

  25. Don Keiller says:

    Not strictly on this thread, but more evidence of UK “Establishment” cover-up revealed.

    Met Office Accused Of Suppressing IPCC Information
    Mail on Sunday, 7 February 2010

    The Meteorological Office is blocking public scrutiny of the central role played by its top climate scientist in a highly controversial report by the beleaguered United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    Professor John Mitchell, the Met Office’s Director of Climate Science, shared responsibility for the most worrying headline in the 2007 Nobel Prize-winning IPCC report – that the Earth is now hotter than at any time in the past 1,300 years.
    And he approved the inclusion in the report of the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, showing centuries of level or declining temperatures until a steep 20th Century rise.
    By the time the 2007 report was being written, the graph had been heavily criticised by climate sceptics who had shown it minimised the ‘medieval warm period’ around 1000AD, when the Vikings established farming settlements in Greenland.
    In fact, according to some scientists, the planet was then as warm, or even warmer, than it is today.
    Early drafts of the report were fiercely contested by official IPCC reviewers, who cited other scientific papers stating that the 1,300-year claim and the graph were inaccurate.
    But the final version, approved by Prof Mitchell, the relevant chapter’s review editor, swept aside these concerns.
    Now, the Met Office is refusing to disclose Prof Mitchell’s working papers and correspondence with his IPCC colleagues in response to requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act.
    The block has been endorsed in writing by Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth – whose department has responsibility for the Met Office.
    Documents obtained by The Mail on Sunday reveal that the Met Office’s stonewalling was part of a co-ordinated, legally questionable strategy by climate change academics linked with the IPCC to block access to outsiders.
    Last month, the Information Commissioner ruled that scientists from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – the source of the leaked ‘Warmergate’ emails – acted unlawfully in refusing FOI requests to share their data.
    Some of the FOI requests made to them came from the same person who has made requests to the Met Office.
    He is David Holland, an electrical engineer familiar with advanced statistics who has written several papers questioning orthodox thinking on global warming.

    The Met Office’s first response to Mr Holland was a claim that Prof Mitchell’s records had been ‘deleted’ from its computers.
    Later, officials admitted they did exist after all, but could not be disclosed because they were ‘personal’, and had nothing to do with the professor’s Met Office job.
    Finally, they conceded that this too was misleading because Prof Mitchell had been paid by the Met Office for his IPCC work and had received Government expenses to travel to IPCC meetings.
    The Met Office had even boasted of his role in a Press release when the report first came out.
    But disclosure, they added, was still rejected on the grounds it would ‘inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or the free and frank provision of views’.
    It would also ‘prejudice Britain’s relationship with an international organisation’ and thus be contrary to UK interests.
    In a written response justifying the refusal dated August 20, 2008, Mr Ainsworth – then MoD Minister of State – used exactly the same language.
    Mr Holland also filed a request for the papers kept by Sir Brian Hoskins of Reading University, who was the review editor of a different chapter of the IPCC report.
    When this too was refused, Mr Holland used the Data Protection Act to obtain a copy of an email from Sir Brian to the university’s information officer.
    The email, dated July 17, 2008 – when Mr Holland was also trying to get material from the Met Office and the CRU – provides clear evidence of a co-ordinated effort to hide data. Sir Brian wrote:
    ‘I have made enquiries and found that both the Met Office/MOD and UEA are resisting the FOI requests made by Holland. The latter are very relevant to us, as UK universities should speak with the same voice on this. I gather that they are using academic freedom as their reason.’
    At the CRU, as the Warmergate emails reveal, its director, Dr Phil Jones (who is currently suspended), wrote to an American colleague:
    ‘[We are] still getting FOI requests as well as Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions – not to respond.’
    Last night Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the affair further undermined the credibility of the IPCC and those associated with it. He said:‘It’s of critical importance that data such as this should be open. More importantly, the questions being raised about the hockey stick mean that we may have to reassess the climate history of the past 2,000 years.‘The attempt to make the medieval warm period disappear is being seriously weakened, and the claim that now is the warmest time for 1,300 years is no longer based on reliable evidence.’

    Despite repeated requests, the MoD and Met Office failed to comment.

    Copyright 2010, Mail on Sunday

  26. Mike J says:

    Methinks Rudd should ‘get with the science on this’ and apologize to Brendan Nelson, not to mention the Australian people for leading them down a carbon tax track all the while singing loudly “The science is settled, the science is settled…”

  27. DaveH says:

    The worst drought in Australian history was in 1850, which resulted in “Black Thurdsay”, on 6th February 1851.

    http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/droughthistory.html

  28. JX says:

    here is what the Murray River looked like in 1915:
    http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Water_levels_in_the_Murray_River

    I lost count of all the SUV’s… Is that a coal-fired power plant behind those river gums? It’s criminal how these ‘people’ continue to perpetrate this fraud.

    Here’s a passage from Dorothea Mackellar [c.1908]:
    …I love a sunburnt country,
    A land of sweeping plains,
    Of ragged mountain ranges,
    Of droughts and flooding rains…

    this place was like that well before we got here… get the picture KRudd?

  29. PaulsNZ says:

    Rudd will ban Wattsupwiththat soon he is a real piece of work!.

  30. Mike J says:

    Check these photos of the Murray River in 1914 and 2007…

    http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Water_levels_in_the_Murray_River

  31. Zorro says:

    You’ll know that AGW is really true when KRudd goes to the IMF to raise money to put the Sydney harbour Opera House on stilts.

    Drum roll,
    Com’on, someone do a cartoon, – please.

  32. CodeTech says:

    Christopher Hanley (01:42:24) :

    Tossing in “robust” certainly adds authenticity.

    Not just robust, but zesty, too!

    Okay, everyone I know in Australia who lives outside of the big cities knows that the problem is not climate, or weather, but gross mismanagement of water resources. Apparently dams are out of fashion. So everyone who opposes proper water management as practiced in every other first world country should be legally barred from complaining about drought or floods.

    And a question for the hippy-generation politicians running the show: which is more important: the two-toed guppy moth you’re theoretically protecting, or your tax-paying voters?

  33. twawki says:

    Aaah I don’t think even their page numbering is right!

    And I bet their reports are not even on recycled paper

  34. B. Smith says:

    Meanwhile, Professor Phil Jones from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit – the expert at the ­centre of the Climategate scandal – said he had considered suicide and had death threats over leaked emails which appeared to show ­scientists rigging the data. Prof Jones, 57, has stood down ­during a probe and accepts he should have worded some of his emails differently. But he added: “I stand 100 per cent behind the science. I did not manipulate or fabricate any data.”
    ———————————————————

    I suppose that would depend on what your definition of ‘manipulate’ is.

  35. amicus curiae says:

    well timed Anthony, I asked richard north to have a snoop as the africa gate disaster quotes seemed very close to whats waffled here, ie no crops in 50 years whatever..
    “[21] The relative roles of air temperature and SSH on
    evapotranspiration rates can be approximated through simple
    calculations. The 2002 drought had an extra 1.5 hours of
    bright sunshine per day than the 1952–2008 average.

    ( Amazing..and they know this? how?? I suspect simple is describing More than the calcs)
    Using
    the PBL model under wet land surface conditions and forced
    with typical sunny conditions, the average actual evapotranspiration
    was simulated. On average, an extra 1.5 hours of
    bright sunshine, instead of the alternative cloudy conditions,
    provides approximately 0.32mm of additional evapotranspiration.
    In contrast, an increase in air temperature of 2degC
    causes only an additional 0.076 mm of evapotranspiration
    over the entire day.
    Aw..whats the point of debating it , its bloody fiction anyway, using a model of wet surface? huh? if it was sunny it wouldnt be all that wet here for very long! average actual? simulation..
    shhesh!
    I will be so GLAD to see KRudd and Wrong OUT on their butts!

  36. 3x2 says:

    CodeTech (01:40:55) :

    twawki, as has been pointed out, the page numbering seems accurate…

    Funny how all these things are suddenly coming to light now! I’m sure people knew about these but were sitting on them. I wish “we” had had a clearinghouse of errors that “we” could have pointed people to summarizing all of this before.

    Climategate: the gift that keeps on giving. There aren’t many more wheels left to fall off of that wagon…

    “House of Cards” – the problem has been constant BS amplification. 0.6°C over a hundred years just doesn’t get people on board so it gets ramped up to “worse than we thought” (nice and non-quantifiable) when that doesn’t work we get “X months to save the planet”. Manning up (or down) the data doesn’t matter – it’s all for a good cause. The problem is that after you “sex up” the results somebody comes along and adds their little bit before re-using them.

    Drought in the MDB, floods in the MDB or MDB not doing much at all – anything will do if it supports the narrative.

    I get the feeling that Vicky Pope saw this coming last year when she warned against ramping up the rhetoric too far. Eventually a card falls and the whole lot – good science and bad – tumbles.

  37. dearieme says:

    “Prof Jones…. added: “I stand 100 per cent behind the science. I did not manipulate or fabricate any data.””
    But how much did you hide, laddy?

  38. Tony Hansen says:

    Geoff Sherrington (01:24:58) :
    ‘The good Prof David would have a brain able to occupy a week long conference on psychiatry, to use the “Fawlty Towers” comment’.

    Not kind, Geoff.
    True….but not kind.

  39. Expat in France says:

    Sorry, a bit off topic, I know, but a “heads up”:

    “You and Yours” tomorrow (BBC Radio 4) are inviting opinions about the public having been swayed for or against the AGW dogma in view of the recent IPCC revelations (and other things), if anyone is interested. Might be a good idea to deluge the biased-BBC with your comments and E mails…

  40. K2 says:

    Does this sound like every scientist that is quoted in IPCC has committed fraud to get AGW funding?

  41. Baa Humbug says:

    Re: Zorro (Feb 8 03:09),

    Good one zorro. I’ll suggest that to Jo Nova. She is dapper with the toons

  42. Kevin Kilty says:

    The logical trilemma involves dogma, circular reasoning, and the infinite regression. The IPCC and pals seem to have dogma and circular reasoning down pat. I wish they’d get around to working on an infinite regression. Keep ‘em busy for a while.

  43. EuroFooFighter says:

    “What are these “facts” you speak of, that you cite as proof, that you want people to accept”

    “Facts are for losers.”

  44. brc says:

    Stuart H (01:17:21) :

    I also remember him from the ‘debate’ around the Great Global Warming Swindle. I also lost a lot of respect for Tony Jones that night.

    Karoly was a disgrace to himself and science the way he presented himself that night. He was like a kid in a candy shop having a camera all to himself and wouldn’t stop and let others talk.

    Incidentally, I just finished watching Q and A on ABC TV, where Kevin Rudd was asked questions by a group of young people. One young bloke got up and asked about if he is going to question the IPCC, and Rudd trotted out his ‘4000 scientists in white coats’ line. He also re-iterated his plans for an ETS and blamed the Senate for spoiling everything. I don’t think he plans to back away from his ETS anytime soon.

    The couple of planted questions in the audience was sickening. The first one was ‘what’s your new election slogan going to be’. I just sped through until someone asked a real question (thanks Tivo for sparing me an hour of KR)

  45. tty says:

    Patrick Davis (01:50:22) :

    But in Western Australia, it’s worse than we thought.

    http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/climate-change/wa-drought-could-be-worst-for-750-years-20100205-niee.html

    The strange thing is that the Bureau of Meteorology seems to be completely unaware of this terrible drought:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=drought&area=aus&period=3month&region=aus&time=latest

    By the way, I wonder has there ever been as little drought as this map suggests in Australia in historical times?

  46. maz2 says:

    Facts? Just the facts? Get yer data here at:

    O & Al Gore’s Weather (OAGW): What’s this? “long duration”? “unusual snow storm”?

    Who’s Izzi?

    ““The storm is going to be a little bit of an unusual snow storm because of the long duration that’s expected,” Izzi said.”
    …-

    “Blustery, lengthy storm could produce “blizzard-like” conditions”

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2035498,winter-weather-chicago-snow-storm-020810.article

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013302.html

  47. Dr. Robert says:

    Someone could write a whole book about IPCCGate.

  48. Henry chance says:

    As I understand it, rarely less than 20-25% of Australia on any given day is stressed with drought. So now the dry areas are displaying more drama to back up claims and blame.
    If we didn’t have roads and romaing video cameras feeding this to TEEVEE< the problem would be prevented. Such was the case over 40 years ago.

  49. Lynne says:

    The WWF just seems to keep surfacing in these reports. As more and more information comes to light, it will be interesting to see the extent of this group’s involvement.

  50. Alex says:

    peer review?-rubbish. It is now blogosphere review. Scientists( I use the term loosely) and politicians beware. Move with the times. The people will find the truth despite your best efforts.

  51. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    Exactly what part of the IPCC report is peer reviewed?

  52. Bob Highland says:

    I happened to mention in another thread only yesterday that we in Oz were feeling a bit left out because there hadn’t been an Australiagate yet, and that there surely must be one lurking somewhere, possibly connected with droughts, and then bingo!

    WUWT: The site that delivers. Cheers, Antony, and also to Andrew Bolt whom I also follow daily.

    In any case, the likes of Karoly, Rudd, Tim Flanneller and their ilk are indubitably perfectly familiar with a piece of research released by the University of New South Wales last year.

    http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/indian-ocean-drought/

    This work discovered that it is the Indian Ocean Dipole that is the chief influencer of prolonged droughts in southern Australia, even more so than El Nino/La Nina cycles. Its positive and negative phases govern the strength and moisture content of winds that sweep down across the continent and deliver rain to grateful paddocks.

    Imagine that – it is a vast tropical and equatorial ocean that is actually responsible for rainfall patterns across a continent that it laps against, when there was such an obvious candidate in plants’ favourite food. Who’d a thought it?

    One could be forgiven for thinking that in the light of this revelation, those people still carrying on with their “poisonous carbon” nonsense are not just disingenuous, they’re cynical charlatans intent on subverting truth and science for their own publicly opaque but highly guessable agenda.

    Tony Abbott – please, hurry up and force an election and save us from these people.

  53. Jean Parisot says:

    I think we should note that the “Team” could not discourage GRL from publishing this paper.

  54. Alan H says:

    From the BBC

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8503397.stm

    Apparently Galapagos sea-lions are moving to Peru, due to global warming?

  55. Bill in Vigo says:

    Of course the IPCC has a true fact. The fact is that there is climate, The unfortunate TRUTH IS THAT THE POWERS THAT BE AT THE IPCC have no idea what the climate is, or what it is going to do, or why it is going to do it. Perhaps if they develop carpal tunnel and can’t use their key boards they will have to look outside for their information. Oops forgot they now have voice recognition capable computers. That presents a whole new problem.

    Oh well there is that one fact there is climate. I guess that will have to do.

    Bill Derryberry

  56. jorgekafkazar says:

    Lockart et al 2009: “It is therefore clear that increased air temperatures play a relatively minor role in driving evapotranspiration.”

    Did anyone look at wind as a factor?

    Stuart H (01:17:21) :”…Mr Karoly…made me see the holes in the AGW science through (his) clearly agenda driven, biased, ranting and immature attitude….”

    RealClimate was what nailed it for me.

  57. R. Gates says:

    OT: Someone asked on another thread why we should care if the arctic sea ice should disappear. Here’s a brand new study that gives some possible details of why:

    http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Protecting_ocean_life/Cost%20of%20Warming%20Arctic-FINAL%202%205%2010.pdf?n=4808

  58. Ray says:

    At this rate of _______-gates, we will surely have our very own Canukgate soon enough. Where did they take their references about the polar bears?

  59. Roger Knights says:

    CodeTech (01:40:55) :

    Climategate: the gift that keeps on giving. There aren’t many more wheels left to fall off of that wagon…

    It seems to be an 18-wheeler.

  60. Antonio San says:

    Karoly is the genius who uttered this gem on Realclimate last year:

    “Of course, the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on bushfires in southeast Australia or elsewhere in the world are not new or unexpected. In 2007, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report WGII chapter “Australia and New Zealand” concluded
    An increase in fire danger in Australia is likely to be associated with a reduced interval between fires, increased fire intensity, a decrease in fire extinguishments and faster fire spread. In south-east Australia, the frequency of very high and extreme fire danger days is likely to rise 4-25% by 2020 and 15-70% by 2050. “

  61. kwik says:

    This Rudd-fellow…… sounds almost like a politician from Norway? hehe

    When I saw the words “robust” and “simulated” I knew there was something …..voodo’ish about it.

  62. Smokey says:

    R. Gates (07:24:03),

    I hope you know that Pew paper is a steaming pile of crap:

    Many people are familiar with the recent graphic images of shrinking ice on the Arctic Ocean, and may be aware of projections that the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by the year 2030…

    As the late, great John Daly points out, the North Pole has ice free cycles. It is nothing unusual, simply natural climate variability.

    The Pew Trust has a heavy pro-AGW agenda. That’s why your citation talks about the Arctic, not the Antarctic — which is growing more ice.

  63. ScientistForTruth says:

    There is a MASSIVE conflict of interest in the UK. If you knew that your pension was being invested in enterprises that would be practically worthless if the AGW scam was exposed, do you think you would be willing to run news or articles that would expose the scam? And what if running news and articles that pumped up the value of your pension investments – would they get an airing?

    It’s now known that the BBC Pension Trust, the Environment Agency Pension Fund and the Universities Superannuation Scheme are members of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC). UK Media, UK Government and UK Universities! It’s almost unbelievable.

    IIGCC for its part is bankrolled and controlled by The Climate Group, a very powerful – perhaps the most powerful – lobby group for the Green agenda. The Annual report 2005/6 of The Climate Group declares in the notes to the accounts:

    “IIGCC: Funding to manage and facilitate the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, a network of pension funds and asset managers seeking to be active on climate change.”

    And also

    “In addition to these programmes, The Climate Group is supporting…the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), a network of 26 pension funds and asset managers focused on addressing climate risk. The membership of IIGCC voted unanimously to transfer the management of the group to The Climate Group in late 2005.”

    The Climate group says of itself:

    “we’ve created a coalition of governments and the world’s most influential businesses…Through this coalition, we’re helping to set the targets, create the policies, build the confidence, and generate the political willpower needed to make the changes the world requires…”

    But it also extends down to the humble consumer:

    “Together is The Climate Group’s consumer engagement campaign. First launched in the UK in April 2007, the campaign is the country’s leading climate change campaign.”

    The Climate Group has the following principles:

    “We believe…climate change is an urgent problem that requires an internationally coordinated, collaborative response directed at substantially reducing global GHG emissions…We will therefore strive…To achieve significant reductions in GHG emissions…exploring mechanisms such as emissions trading, policies and laws to facilitate this.”

    There’s more here about the web that Robert Napier has spun (formerly of WWF, now head of the Met Office).

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/eco-imperialism-every-environmentalists-dream/

    In this post I asked the question why there hadn’t been a fuss kicked up about what Napier and his cronies have been up to. Now perhaps we know why – because peoples’ pensions rely on the myth of AGW being sustained. This state of affairs hasn’t just come about by chance. There can be no question that governments, the UN, and advocacy groups such as WWF have conspired to bring about this dreadful state of affairs.

  64. Booty says:

    OT: Quote of the day….

    “Steve Stengel, director of communications for Nextera, said they [sic] company is undeterred by opposition and plans to press ahead with the project near Priceville.”

    This, after a crowded room of 400 people screaming at the company to get out of their community (i.e. wind farms)

    http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2437671

  65. Bill Parsons says:

    Subsequent studies have interpreted an identified trend in the residual timeseries of non-rainfall related temperature variability as a signal of anthropogenic change, further speculating that increased air temperature has exacerbated the drought through increasing evapotranspiration rates.

    What gobbledygook. Why don’t they just say, “Look, whatever it is, YOU caused it. Now shall we place this on your Wallaby or Koalacard?”

  66. Hank Hancock says:

    Another example of the IPCC’s peerless non-review process at work. AR4 has turned out to be nothing more than a synthesis of the wild imaginations of journalists and politicians. The IPCC will go down in history as a science fiction and sex novel writers guild.

  67. mpaul says:

    OK, hang on. I think we need to distinguish between two things. First, this is a legitimate scientific controversy where there are conflicting peer-reviewed papers. Yes, its true that IPCC always seems to take only the alarmist view when there is a conflict, and that’s a problem. And yes, its true that some of the peer-reviewed alarmist science is pure junk. But this situation should not be labeled a ‘-gate’ because the IPCC did rely on a peer-reviewed source.

    The second situation is more serious, namely the use of non-peer reviewed sources (particularly the use of political advocacy literature) in preference to peer-reviewed sources in order to promote alarmism and to manipulate financial markets. We saw this with Glacier-gate, Amazon-gate, Africa-gate, Water-shortage-gate, Rising-cost-of-disaster-gate, etc.

    Let’s not dilute the message by labeling issues that fall into category 1 with the ‘-gate’ meme. We should reserve this for only category 2 problems.

  68. Peter Miller says:

    If anyone is interested, the 30 day weather forecast for the area covered by the Murray Darling Basin is one of exceptionally wet weather.

    Maybe, this is co-incident with a sharp decline in the El Nino phenomenon.

  69. P Wilson says:

    Many years ago – early 1990’s, the NSW government had a project to build dams in more straegic locations. They succumbed to the AGW scare with fatalism and the projects never took off – they were told to get used to a future of more droughts, less rain, and consequently the dams would be useless. In fact, if you look at the rainfall statistics from the burea meterological pages, they have remained constant over the century.

    It would have been good precaution to have continued with the dam project to capture rainwater, and not to have heeded so closely the dire prognostications.

  70. ScientistForTruth says:

    Further to my earlier post, here is a link to a piece of blatant advocacy work to EU Heads of State.

    http://www.iigcc.org/docs/PDF/Public/IIGCConEUEnergyandClimateChangepackage.pdf

    There is a single signatory:

    Peter Dunscombe
    Chairman, IIGCC
    Head of Pensions – Investments, BBC Pension Trust Ltd

    I rest my case.

  71. Richard M says:

    R. Gates (07:24:03) :

    “OT: Someone asked on another thread why we should care if the arctic sea ice should disappear. Here’s a brand new study that gives some possible details of why:”

    Sounds like they start with an assumption, then only look for problems. They never consider things like forest expansion, shorter shipping routes and even the possibility that open waters might have a significant negative feedback. The report is completely biased which makes it worthless. Are you always this easy to fool?

  72. P Wilson says:

    There’s hope yet, should this be verified. The climate change centre of the Uni of New South wales think they’ve hit on the cause that leads Australia to suffer from droughts. They say its the Indian Ocean dipole, so if they can predict what that will do, then they can plan where make farms and change water management

    http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/indian-ocean-drought/

  73. P Wilson says:

    anyway, the drought in Oz at the moment isn’t considered by scientists to have been caused by so called “global warming”. A lot of it is water policy: precious water supply to sensitive industries has increased 20 fold – and diverted away from households. Fact. According to CSIRO, bushfires have been part of Australia for millions of years, and much of the vegetation evolved with fire and has characteristics that promotes its spread. They also think that the 20th century had higher than average rainfalls. (How they know that given the rather recent statistical record…).

    here’s a recent extract of bushfires and why they happen

    http://www.publish.csiro.au/samples/Grassfires%20sample.pdf

    …particularly “A Historical perpective” and pages 3-4

    the point being made about the impact of Europeans on bushfires which was a domain previously mastered by Aboriginals. However, there are no temperature records from this period. Now, given that there has been no warming at all in the southern hemisphere for at least the last 25 years (NASA CRUT< NOAHH) then regardless of the drought taking place at the moment, we can reasonably assume that the present one is not the most severe, and that it very likely before records began, temperatures could have been higher and heating periods more prolonged. Certainly throughout the southern hemisphere during the period 1868, some 50,000,000 were killed as the result of the drought in the southern hemisphere in a 3-4 year period that turned vast regions of Australia from greenland to desert and killed millions of livestock, and the bushfires burned for weeks.

  74. Jim Clarke says:

    Karoly’s paper was based on the same logical fallacy as the entire IPCC position: “We can’t explain what happened any other way, so our explanation must be true!”

    The IPCC slogan should be: “Certainty through Ignorance!”

    Of course, as the new GRL paper proves, there are other ways to explain what is observed, and those ‘other ways’ fit the observations and known science a whole lot better! The same is true for climate change as a whole. There have always been better explanations for the observed temperature changes, regionally and globally, than the AGW theory. Plus, the AGW theory can not explain Holocene climate change before the 20th century at all. Not only does the IPCC have to ignore the better explanations for recent climate change, it has to erase all evidence of historical change before the 20th century. So they are not just being ignorant, but willfully ignorant. That makes it a scam and a fraud, perpetrated on the the entire world, producing unprecedented cost and harm along the way!

    Of course, I have also held a position against all evidence to the contrary. For a very long time, I believed that humans were more rational than irrational. I think I need to change my position on that one.

  75. DougT says:

    We have the following “gates”
    Indian sub-continent — glaciers melt and leave dry by 2035
    Africa — rainfall down by 50 percent
    Austrailia — droughts
    Do you think that there is an attempt to report a major climate change “apocolypse” in every major continent or sub-continent to build world wide political support? If that is the case, then the remaining future “gates” are in the remaining continents.

  76. TerrySkinner says:

    I think it’s jealousy. Glaciergate, Africagate, Australiagate, NZgate etc. We were there first in the UK: Climategate. Accept no substitutes.

    Our crooks are bigger than your crooks. Our crooks lied about the whole planet, continually. Our crooks were ploting to avoid FOI requests before your crooks wrote their first magazine article in ‘Climate Fraud for Dummies.’

    Good to see we are still world leaders in something. The problem is it’s a once only thing. After this the phrase ‘British Scientist’ will probably produce polite smiles, sniggers behind the hand and pats on the head.

    I blame Dad’s Army myself. Who knew that private Fraser would have such an influence.

  77. Max Hugoson says:

    The data is here:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=T

    As noted above.

    MiniTab 15 , 30 Day download is here:

    http://www.minitab.com/en-US/products/minitab/free-trial.aspx?langType=1033

    Download MiniTab, run Histogram, Normal Dist. curve and Anderson Darling Test for Normalicy. With the exception of three “outliers” (which, by the way are about 700, 750, and 800 mm, i.e. the high end) this is a “Normal Distribution”.

    NOTHING in the last 10 years is outside that “Normal Distribution”.

    Gee wiz! Do you think that weather might be “random” but fit a “Normal Distribution” curve?

    DO ANY OF THESE SO CALLED “CLIMATE EXPERTS” KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT STATISTICS, AND THE STATISTICAL NATURE OF NATURAL PHENOMENON?

  78. Roger Knights says:

    mpaul:

    Let’s not dilute the message by labeling issues that fall into category 1 with the ‘-gate’ meme. We should reserve this for only category 2 problems.

    Absolutely. Overclaiming sets you up for undermining.

  79. R. Gates says:

    Somewhat OT but still relevent to the warming issue:

    To see just how warm 2010 is so far, go here:

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

    At the Near the Surface Layer check every year back to 1998, and redraw the graph…it is amazing how far above the group this year stands. If this trend continues, not only will 2010 will not just beat 1998, but blow 1998 out of the water as the wamest year on record. The year is early and lots can happen (like a volcanic eruption of the magnitude of Mt. Pinatubo) but given that the sun is really starting to wake up and march upward to the solar max of 2013, and CO2 and methane are going up up up, we’ve got a lot warming in store…

  80. maz2 says:

    Watch for socialist Red-Green Al Gore’s AGW Death Count.

    “as a Siberian blast of bitterly cold air sweeps through Europe and freezes Britain.”
    …-

    “Siberian cold likely to bring sub-zero temperatures and snow

    Winter will make an icy return this week as a Siberian blast of bitterly cold air sweeps through Europe and freezes Britain.

    Much of the country could see snow, with forecasters saying that sub-zero temperatures could last until the end of the month.”

    “Already this winter has been the coldest since 1981-82 across Britain, and the coldest in Scotland in archives dating back to 1914. With a cold February now in prospect, this winter is now turning out to be unusually long and hard — more like the “winter of discontent” in 1978-79, one of the worst winters of the 20th century.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/weather/article7018518.ece

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013302.html

  81. joshua corning says:

    Can anyone find anything, just something that may be even close to the truth in the IPCC reports !

    I am willing to bet that they claim the earth is round. Which is true. But i am also pretty sure they blame that fact on human causes…..

  82. JonesII says:

    R. Gates (09:24:21) : A hacker will tell us your real name..that will be the “Gates’ Gate”☺

  83. Antonio San says:

    Funny to see a slew of much more nuanced scientific papers is coming ou after Copenhagen… I guess scientific journals’ editors probably held them for after the announced, supposed triumph of IPCC -recall that prior to Copenhagen, alarmism was the rule- hoping that no one would pay attention to them in view of the ground breaking political accord. But the strategy is backfiring and every new paper with a moderate view is now more than ever picked up and shown as a proof of IPCC, journals and MSM bias.

  84. Ron de Haan says:

    Opposition against Climate legislation from Utah

  85. Smokey says:

    R. Gates (09:24:21),

    Will you ever get up to speed?

    Here, let me help: click

    See what happened after 1998? Nothing.

    Calm down. The climate is normal. Nothing unusual is happening. What you’re seeing is natural variability.

  86. Duncan says:

    I agree with mpaul – this isn’t a -gate.

    Not sure I really understand this article, must have misread it twice.
    The drought isn’t necessarily caused by warming temperatures, the warming temperatures could be caused by the drought.
    But rainfall in the area has remained steady or increased, so what caused the drought?

    Is this instead an example of Pielke Sr.’s land-use changes causing global warming?

  87. Marc77 says:

    I wonder why they have put so many useless information in their report. Because only useless information can be falsified without any effect on the conclusion.

  88. Tenuc says:

    R. Gates (07:24:03) :
    “OT: Someone asked on another thread why we should care if the arctic sea ice should disappear. Here’s a brand new study that gives some possible details of why:”

    The Pew Environment Group have been spouting rubbish on this and other climate/environment topics for some time. This report is no exception. It is based on bad assumptions and poor science.

    The Arctic will continue to be frozen even if the IPCC’s baseless and alarmist worst case prediction of a 6 degree C rise did happen. History shows that the amount of sea ice is never constant over time and amounts have varied drastically over the decades. I think you will get a feel for how bad this report is from the first paragraph, which is complete ‘marketing speech’.

    Conclusion
    “The frozen Arctic provides immense services to all nations by cooling the earth’s
    temperature—the cryosphere acts like an air conditioner for the planet. As the Arctic
    melts, this critical, climate-stabilizing ecosystem service is being lost, and this paper
    provides a first attempt to monetize the cost of some of those lost services.”

    When a certain person keeps popping up on threads with irrelevant OT posts, perhaps we now have a new ‘gate’ to add to the collection, “Rubbish-Gate”, or R.Gate for short :-))

  89. Ron de Haan says:

    President Obama, please follow India’s suit: Pull the US out of the IPCC to keep your pledge to ‘restore scientific integrity to government decision making’
    http://algorelied.com/?p=3672

  90. Dugetit says:

    Tomorrows new ClimateGate ‘Gate” may be SunsteinGate or CensorGate

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5086

  91. stumpy says:

    When I first saw the all important AR4 report and opened it to the contents and saw they had spelt “atmosphere” wrong, I immediately got a feeling for the high standard of work that went into it and the thoroughness of the review process!

  92. JonesII says:

    Kate (01:29:12) : From the article you linked:

    Professor Phil Jones from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit – the expert at the ­centre of the Climategate scandal – said he had considered suicide

  93. JonesII says:

    Come on Phil! That happens because you are new in politics, we use to lie every time and we just don’t kill ourselves for that…

  94. Steve Dallas says:

    I vote we ban the use of “Robust” from any use other than describing coffee, and “made up from whole cloth” from anything not having to actually due with cloth.
    These are getting up there with Harrismint.

  95. J.Peden says:

    Tony Hansen (04:48:11) :

    Geoff Sherrington (01:24:58) :
    ‘The good Prof David would have a brain able to occupy a week long conference on psychiatry, to use the “Fawlty Towers” comment’.

    Not kind, Geoff.
    True….but not kind.

    Ha, from what I’ve read about Fawltry Towers, Geoff’s reference sounds more puposefully a little too kind.

    On the contrary, pychoderangements such as disasterizing and predicting the Apocalypse are critical to both propagandists’ non-cynical use of this kind of mechanism – as genuine or not “clinically detached” from its use – and to the effect desired by genuine and nongenuine practitioners alike upon those to whom the propaganda is directed for its mass effect. AGWers are nearly always either manifesting some degree of panic or trying to induce it in others in order to abort a truely rational or scientific approach to the alleged problem, which then embodies and leads to all the dysfunction we see in “Climate Science”, partlicularly that it is not real Science but instead a gigantic Propaganda Operation – one whose “success” would instead lead almost certainly to genuine man made disasters.

    Isolating the “psychiatric” nature of AGW “science” in general helps to explain AGW science itself, perhaps so we can head it off in time and prevent similar recurrences which tend to endanger, not help people – although at the same time no one knows if or how many individuals can be helped to escape the claws of their own fear mechanisms. I know some people very well for whom this problem nearly runs their lives – it’s like an obsessive compulsive disorder run amok and unfortuneately externalized as a form of “idealistically” helping others or “saving the world”, so that other people must be made to obey the dictates of the obsessive compulsion, too.

    I’m not excluding myself from this mechanism, either. But knowing it exists seems to help me to at least keep it to myself, and see it as my problem to deal with, and not everyone else’s to enable or become slaves to.

  96. Robert says:

    Imagine that. The driest continent on the planet experiencing periodic droughts! Surely this could not have happened before! Yes, it must be humans responsible for the drought this time. Clearly much of what the alarmist camp is using as scientific evidence, is anything but…..

  97. R. Gates says:

    Tenuc said:

    “The Arctic will continue to be frozen even if the IPCC’s baseless and alarmist worst case prediction of a 6 degree C rise did happen.”

    Tenuc, if you believe the world could see 6 degrees C of warming without losing all arctic sea ice and probably melting most of the permafrost as well, then we have very little scientific basis for agreement. No point in answering or responding to you. Good day…

  98. A C Osborn says:

    ScientistForTruth (08:01:00) : it is even worse than you state, this from Christopher Bookers Article on the 6th regarding “that by 2035 all Himalayan glaciers will have melted. In 2001 the Department for International Development (DfID) spent £315,277 commissioning a team of British scientists to investigate this prediction. After co-opting its Indian originator, Dr Syed Hasnain, they reported in 2004 that his claim was just a scare story. Some glaciers were retreating, others were not.” This is the British Establishment he are talking about, they knew the 2035 was wrong in 2004.

  99. A C Osborn says:

    sorry – This is the British Establishment he is talking about, they knew the 2035 was wrong in 2004.

  100. JonesII says:

    Warm waters near Australia bringing rain. Cold seas indeed:
    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

  101. R. Gates says:

    Jones II said: “A hacker will tell us your real name..that will be the “Gates’ Gate”☺

    Is this suppose to scare me? Not quite sure what your point here is? How is this related climate issues?

  102. Mark Walker says:

    I recall vividly, learning about Australia in middle school (in the early 70’s) that the “only” river system in Southern Australia was the Murray-Darling – and that the flows in Murray-Darling were intermittent and it was often dry, and unreliable for irrigation or use as a water supply.

    We were also taught at that time that the ice age was coming, soon.

  103. D. King says:

    Dugetit (10:23:50) :

    Interesting link. Forget global warming, Sunstein should send out
    “government agents or their allies” to infiltrate the conspiracy
    theory groups that believe our government has been invaded by
    paranoid progressives.

  104. JonesII says:

    J.Peden (10:57:12) : Global Warming/Climate Change has resulted in a real “psychic infection” in europe, US and australia. The rest of the world it is just watching you running like lemmings to the precipice.

  105. Neven says:

    Is this the part of Australia that has experienced three record heat waves in the last two years (one of these heat waves being in spring)?

  106. JonesII says:

    J.Peden (10:57:12) : Here it is the precise quote from C.G.Jung:

    In this broad belt of unconsciousness, which is immune to conscious criticism and control, we stand defenseless, open to all kinds of influences and psychic infections. As with all dangers, we can guard against the risk of psychic infection only when we know that is attacking, and how, where and when the attack will come.

    Since self-knowledge is a matter of getting to know the individual, facts and theories are of very little help in this respect. For the more a theory lays claims to universal validity, the less capable it is of doing justice to the individual facts.

    Any theory based on experience is necessarily statistical; that is to say, it formulates an ideal average which abolishes all exceptions at either end of the scale and replaces them by an abstract mean. This mean is quite valid, though it need not necessarily occur in reality.

    Carl Jung, The Undiscovered Self

  107. Jay says:

    I’m thinking it’s a little too much to ask, even of the IPCC, to include a paper just published in a 3 year old report. Although we all know that the IPCC isn’t really an expert panel of volunteers from the academic arena, but is in fact at the heart of an all-powerful cabal bent on raising taxes on an unsuspecting populous – so who knows, perhaps they do have access to top-secret time travel technology.

  108. Dave Johnson says:

    “R Gates

    Jones II said: “A hacker will tell us your real name..that will be the “Gates’ Gate”☺

    Is this suppose to scare me? Not quite sure what your point here is? How is this related climate issues?”

    It’s a joke laddie, humour hasn’t been outlawed as a cause of global warming, yet;-)

  109. Stephen Brown says:

    @ Alan H (06:47:58)
    Auntie Beeb has now added a “correction” to the article which you have cited. It is surprising that the BBC has admitted making an error in the identification of the mammal which appears to have fled, but the MOST important correction is in the final paragraph! Not too far from reality but, for the BBC to actually publish this is groundbreaking reprting for them!!

    “Correction 8 February: An earlier version of this story had the species incorrectly as sea lion – lobos marinos. The mammal in question is fur seal – lobos marinos finos.
    The measurements of average sea temperatures were taken by the Peruvian Geophysics Institute, and should not have been attributed to Orca as in the earlier version.
    The earlier version had a reference to the temperature rise being caused by climate change. This has been removed as the relevant research is still in its early stages.”

  110. James from Melbourne says:

    Karoly is on record as saying in a recent Australian television show that 1,000 – 2,000 peer reviewed articles were published every year which explicitly support the “science” underpinning Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    He has been challenged on it privately by a number of people I know, but has repeatedly failed or refused to back up his claim.

    When the show trials begin, Karoly will be one of the first of the Australian Warming Fraudsters to be rounded up.

  111. rbateman says:

    JonesII (11:16:37) :

    Are you not happy with your recent live-giving rains?
    We have many in California who are not at all pleased to see rain & snow.
    The logic escapes me, as they don’t seem to have the basic understanding of where they live.

  112. Earle Williams says:


    R. Gates (11:18:38) :

    Jones II said: “A hacker will tell us your real name..that will be the “Gates’ Gate”☺

    Is this suppose to scare me? Not quite sure what your point here is? How is this related climate issues?

    I believe it is intended as humor. Might get yours checked , seems to be a bit out of alignment.

  113. Michael says:

    OT
    “DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – The world’s tallest skyscraper has unexpectedly closed to the public a month after its lavish opening, disappointing tourists headed for the observation deck and casting doubt over plans to welcome its first permanent occupants in the coming weeks.

    Electrical problems are at least partly to blame for the closure of the Burj Khalifa’s viewing platform — the only part of the half-mile high tower open yet. But a lack of information from the spire’s owner left it unclear whether the rest of the largely empty building — including dozens of elevators meant to whisk visitors to the tower’s more than 160 floors — was affected by the shutdown.”

    World’s Tallest Tower Closed a Month After Opening
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100208/ap_on_bi_ge/ml_dubai_tallest_building

  114. Dr A Burns says:

    “Warming cannot yet be attributed to any anthropogenic cause.” IPCC 1995

    … and of course nothing has changed since then.

  115. leftymartin says:

    Not to be a stick in the mud here, but Karoly’s publications in the references for Chapter 9 are as follows:

    Karoly, D.J., 2003: Ozone and climate change. Science, 302, 236–237.
    Karoly, D.J., and K. Braganza, 2001: Identifying global climate change using simple indices. Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2205–2208.
    Karoly, D.J., and K. Braganza, 2005a: Attribution of recent temperature changes in the Australian region. J. Clim., 18, 457–464.
    Karoly, D.J., and K. Braganza, 2005b: A new approach to detection of anthropogenic temperature changes in the Australian region. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys., 89, 57–67.
    Karoly, D.J., and Q. Wu, 2005: Detection of regional surface temperature trends. J. Clim., 18, 4337–4343.
    Karoly, D.J., et al., 2003: Detection of a human influence on North American climate. Science, 302, 1200–1203.

    All are from peer-reviewed journals. Whether they are correct or not is a different question, but I don’t see how this can be cited as another WWF boondoggle.

  116. Curiousgeorge says:

    From FoxNews: Administration Proposes New Agency to Study Climate Change

    Oh, boy, here we go again! From Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/….climate-change/

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Monday proposed a new agency to study and report on the changing climate, which has drawn concern among many scientists in recent years.

    Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, announced NOAA will set up the new Climate Service to operate in tandem with NOAA’s National Weather Service and National Ocean Service.

    “Whether we like it or not, climate change represents a real threat,” Locke said Monday at a news conference.

    Lubchenco added, “Climate change is real, it’s happening now.” She said climate information is vital to the wind power industry, coastal community planning, fishermen and fishery managers, farmers and public health officials. ………………….

    The new agency will initially be led by Thomas Karl, director of the current National Climatic Data Center. The Climate Service will be headquartered in Washington and will have six regional directors across the country.

  117. MikeO says:

    I hope no one else mentions this but I am in a hurry and could not read them all. The graphic by coloring the so called basin green gives totally the wrong idea. This is not green never was and we are talking about arid areas. Have a look at http://www.murrayriver.com.au/river-management/murray-darling-basin-commission/. I live in Canberra over on the right it used to get about 600mm now around 450mm, a near desert rainfall. To the south you will see the Murray and the Murrumbidge flows close to us. The Snowy Mountains Scheme built many years ago was a huge effort to divert the melting snows inland and created an irrigated farming industry along the Murray. From about 1940 through until about 1980 we also had exceptionally high rainfall and everyone got used to it, then it reverted back to form. A classic photo is this one http://www.pictures.libraries.vic.gov.au/site/mildura/boats/14530.html looks very wet does it not? There is a lot of flatness in the Basin so I don’t know why we persist in the name for instance on memory the Darling falls about an inch per 70 miles. It is so slow that in the 50s when a flood was coming down the river to where it joined the Murray there was enough time to gather 100 tractors to build a large levee around Wentworth and save the town. Finally this basin will no more hold water than KRudd, Wrong or the AGW argument.

  118. Phil Jourdan says:

    rbateman (12:29:02) :
    We have many in California who are not at all pleased to see rain & snow.

    Except when the fires come! Californians are never satisfied.

  119. JonesII says:

    Curiousgeorge (12:54:07) Doomed! This new agency will issue “robust” reports to back “climate change” remediation.

  120. D. King says:

    rbateman (12:29:02) :

    We have many in California who are not at all pleased to see rain & snow.
    The logic escapes me, as they don’t seem to have the basic understanding of where they live.

    So true. Here is a link to the L.A. storm drain system.

    http://www.lastormwater.org/siteorg/general/lastrmdrn.htm

    Note the picture of the governor in the storm channel making
    the movie Terminator. Talk about clueless.

  121. Dave Andrews says:

    Dearimie,

    “This is a new paper, so we need time to elapse to see whether critical scrutiny reveals any shortcomings. This is true in general of all papers”

    Precisely, so why did IPCC seize upon the Karoly paper for inclusion in AR4? Why didn’t they wait for time to elapse to see if there was critical scrutiny forthcoming?

  122. Luke says:

    What denialist twaddle. All the usual nonsense.

    Issue should be what causes or prolongs droughts – not drought severity. SO deceptively Bolt in his usual bulldusting style fogs an entire issue.

    (1) Not on the pace – and as usual it’s what denialists don’t tell you – not what they tell you as they fail miserably in their duty of care

    What is not told is that there is very good research (Indian Ocean Climate Initiative (IOCI -CSIRO & BoM) and the South East Australian Climate Initiative (SEACI – CSIRO & BoM)) that documents changes in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and the intensification of the subtropical ridge (STR) which adds to, reinforces, prolongs drought caused by natural factors ENSO and Indian Ocean Dipole. Perhaps even AGW changes in the IOD itself. Maybe even Walker circulation.

    The SEACI research shows that circulation changes in the south-east region are likely to have been influenced by AGW. (greenhouse and stratospheric ozone decline forcings). This work is very detailed and very specific.

    (2) It’s about agri-business risk management which those sitting in air conditioned offices know little about – is it your agribusiness dollars, your investment or your family property

    (3) confounding the ETS with the climate science i.e. if you don’t like the ETS – therefore the climate science MUST be wrong – illogical

    (4) that suddenly AGW theory demands all natural drought influences must disappear – who said ?

    (5) fail to quote the last line of the Lockart et al GRL paper which says “It is stressed that the results of the analyses presented here in no way negate genuine concerns over anthropogenic climate change” – as they says in Aussie – this is having two bob each way? pretty weak … as they know what they’ve left out

    (6) nothing on the changes in wind run which reflect in changes in pan evaporation – more atmospheric AGW circulation changes

    (7) and yawn Lockart et al have missed http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031524.shtml

    But of course who would come to Wattsup to get a serious education?

    P.S. Usual ruses here – (1) present rainfall stats for the whole Murray Darling Basin (MDB) – issue is lower MDB – i.e. Murray itself. Better still present rainfall stats for the whole of Australia. (NW has become wetter – while east, SE, and SW drier – average that and learn nothing !!)

    Ruse 2 – “there have been droughts before” – duh !

    Ruse 3 – pretend AGW science doesn’t know/care about natural variability

  123. A C Osborn says:

    This is a Categorical Statement by D. J. Karoly and K. Braganza.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/k8k1532833g84512/

    So you can forget all the work being done on Temperature Readings.

  124. A C Osborn says:

    This is a Categorical Statement by D. J. Karoly and K. Braganza.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/k8k1532833g84512/

    So you can forget all the work being done on Temperature Readings in Australia.

  125. Dave Boulton says:

    joshua corning (09:33:50)

    Just being picky, but I remember being taught that it was an oblate spheroid.

    So that would be “kind of” round then, I guess.

    Dave

  126. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ JonesII (13:03:13) :

    Curiousgeorge (12:54:07) Doomed! This new agency will issue “robust” reports to back “climate change” remediation.

    I notice she hit all the talking points:

    wind power industry – Coal is bad
    coastal community planning – Sea level rise
    fishermen and fishery managers- Ocean Acidification, etc.
    farmers – Drought (or flood, take your pick)
    and public health officials – Tropical diseases

    yep, nothing gets by her. ;)

  127. R. Gates says:

    R. Gates (11:18:38) :

    Jones II said: “A hacker will tell us your real name..that will be the “Gates’ Gate”☺

    Is this suppose to scare me? Not quite sure what your point here is? How is this related climate issues?

    I believe it is intended as humor. Might get yours checked , seems to be a bit out of alignment.

    Sheez…of course!…I’ll get that checked and ask for a stronger prescription of anti-paranoia pills…thx

  128. Not Amused says:

    And the science just keeps chugging along…

  129. Phil Jourdan says:

    R. Gates (13:45:55) :

    R. Gates (11:18:38) : Sheez…of course!…I’ll get that checked and ask for a stronger prescription of anti-paranoia pills…thx

    Those pills work fast! ;)

  130. Peter says:

    Just being picky, but I remember being taught that it was an oblate spheroid.

    If the Earth was the size of a squash ball, it would be smoother than a squash ball, as well as more spherical.

    So, to all intents and purposes, it’s round.

  131. Curiousgeorge says:

    RE: the new Climate Service: Here’s another jewel:

    The NOAA announcement brought quick praise from Sierra Club President Carl Pope: “As polluters and their allies continue to try and muddy the waters around climate science, the Climate Service will provide easy, direct access to the valuable scientific research undertaken by government scientists and others.”

  132. Keith Minto says:

    Rastus (00:35:10) :

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=T

    In truth the trend of rainfall in the Murray Draling Basin over 110 years up…according to the BOM that is.

    I have a problem with the linear trend going up on this landform. Australian inland rivers are really river channels that ,at any point in time may or may not contain water. Fly from Sydney to Singapore and hundreds of square kilometres of these dry river channels will reveal themselves. So the Murray and Darling as main collection rivers will flow only when the peak,/b> flow is large enough to overcome soil absorption and evaporation. The histogram shows a peak in the late 1940’s at 700mm decreasing to 400mm in 1970’s. I consider that the annual peak rainfall event is more important to river flow in the MD basin than the linear trend. To complicate matters, cyclonic and monsoonal rain in western Queensland can feed into the MD basin and this feed is slowly filling the Darling right now.

    Antonia San (07:32:46) There is an anthropogenic factor in bushfire causation, most of then them are deliberately lit !, others are caused by lightning strikes. The Australian flora and forest floor is dry and oily (Eucalypt) and prone to ignition. Any AGW factor is spurious.

  133. James Allison says:

    TerrySkinner (08:52:38) :
    “I think it’s jealousy. Glaciergate, Africagate, Australiagate, NZgate etc. We were there first in the UK: Climategate. Accept no substitutes.

    Our crooks are bigger than your crooks. Our crooks lied about the whole planet, continually.”

    Yeah jealous right that your crooks are bigger. But our crooks (NIWAgate et al) learnt alot about crookery from your crooks, and your crooks could soon be in jail.

  134. Steve Schaper says:

    But he added: “I stand 100 per cent behind the science. I did not manipulate or fabricate any data.”

    Well of course not! That is what grad students are for!

    ;-)

  135. Keith Minto says:

    Apologies for all the bold,it was only ‘peak’ that I wanted to highlight.
    Lord Monckton’s 1.5 hour Brisbane talk is on audio and video http://www.abc.net.au/tv/fora/stories/2010/02/08/2811681.htm

    The ABC presented 5minutes of his talk on their Big Ideas programme this morning, and what a difference it is to hear his presentation so clearly expressed instead of filtered by MSM. This talk was professionally recorded with excellent audio and video quality. You can choose the low bandwidth video version to save motorbikes :)

  136. barking toad says:

    Re: Curious George (12.54.07)

    Now that Hussein has made that announcement, our Krudd downunder will do something similar.

    It will be as useless as his usual talkfests but he will use it as an out for “deferring” his ETS scam after it gets the arse from the senate. He is desperate to find a way out and probably ringing the former insipid Opposition leader begging him not cross the floor for the vote.

    Maenwhile, nice to see Luke continue the “denialist” meme.

  137. John F. Hultquist says:

    Both history and science seem to be beyond the grasp of politicians and others who want to control the world. The Australian contingent has counterparts in other places. Consider:

    Just a couple of years ago the SE USA was considered to be in a drought situation. Today, not so much. And it all is blamed on global warming.

    http://www.pewclimate.org/blog/gulledgej/georgia’s-climate-rollercoaster-illustrates-consequences-global-warming

    What then are the explanations for droughts in Georgia in 1903-05, 1924-27, 1930-35, . . .

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/0380/pdf/ofr00-380.pdf

  138. Sam says:

    A very interesting thread, especially the philosophical/psychological posts…

    I’ve jsut been re-reading some Milan Kundera, who knew a thing or two about totalitariansim, group-think, and the search for ‘paradise’.

    His conversation with Philip Roth printed as an afterword to ‘The Book of Laughter and Forgetting’ is worth reading in the context of our struggle against the hydra-headed AGW bandwagon. Here are a couple of gems, with a special nod to our earnest friends at RealClimate (and R Gates):

    PR: “When your characters come to grief it is always because they bump against a world that is losing its sense of humour”

    MK: “I learned the value of humour during the time of Stalinist terror. I was twenty then. I could always recognize a person who was not a Stalinist, a person whom I needn’t fear, by the way he smiled. A sense of humour was a trustworthy sign of recognition. Ever since I have been terrified by a world that is losing its sense of humour.
    … Human life is bounded by two chasms: fanaticism on one side, absolute skepticism on the other”

    As I’ve remarked before, we Brits stood up to Hitler in our darkest day, mainly by laughing at him. Thank God for this blog to keep us sane

    PS Can anyone tell us how much sense Luke (13.22.01) is or isn’t talking?

  139. Graeme From Melbourne says:

    Chris in Tropical Australia (00:36:30) :

    twawki
    “Can anyone find anything, just something that may be even close to the truth in the IPCC reports !”

    IF the reports have a date of issue, the date could be OK ???

    I also believe that they have got the “Titles” correct, but I haven’t actually seen the evidence…

  140. Rastus says:

    I wonderrif this Luke is the same one who infests the Marohasy blog with the same nit wit arguments

    ” P.S. Usual ruses here – (1) present rainfall stats for the whole Murray Darling Basin (MDB) – issue is lower MDB – i.e. Murray itself. Better still present rainfall stats for the whole of Australia. (NW has become wetter – while east, SE, and SW drier – average that and learn nothing !!)”

    The MDB is a defined area for which the BOM has collected records for over 110 years.They didnt see any problems in using this as specific area ..given its common useage as an agricultural producing region. The absence of water in the lower reaches has nothing to do with the absence of rain, and any marginal differences with the lesser MDB regions are nothing compared to the incompetent way the water in the whole has been managed

    Ruse 2 – “there have been droughts before” – duh !
    There certainly have been and every Aussie and bar fly with half a brain knows thi,s except the dillberry academics chasing more grant money

    Get a life Luke whoever you are

  141. Luke says:

    Gets even worse for denialists. Lockart et al will be comprehensively rebutted in an upcoming GRL.

    The trend in SSH over the MDB as reported in LKF is not real, and is an artefact of their analysis. As they say in Oz – “come in spinner”.

  142. Steve Case says:

    I wish this was a bit clearer as to who was claiming what and who was claiming it isn’t so and why.

  143. Bored with it all says:

    “I stand 100 per cent behind the science. I did not manipulate or fabricate any data.”
    sounds a bit like

    “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”

    and we all know how that turned out:)

  144. marchesarosa says:

    Scientist for Truth

    I know this is off-topic here but I hope the admin will treat us with a little indulgence. I saw a link before to the International Investors Group on Climate Change and their connection to the BBC Pension Fund via the Director of both being Peter Dunscombe. When I saw your message above re the connection between IIGCC and the The Climate Group (the biggest Green Lobby group in the world ?) I followed that up too.

    I posted a long post on it earlier this evening on the BBC radio4 Science Board but it was removed immediately. Never mind, I also posted it on my climate blog here http://thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=climate&action=display&thread=262&page=1

    Do you remember back in November 2009, just after Climategate (19 Nov) when the BBC and ALL other UK mainstream media were studiously ignoring the fascinating email leak, from CRU? Susan Watts, supposedly the BBC’s “science” correspondent on BBC2 Newsnight 29 Nov, presented a smokescreen piece that purported to demonstrate the growing incidence of extreme weather by the growth in insurance claims for weather damage.

    I debunked it at the time, on the previous WHs Proboard, sadly no longer extant. The programme was a load of tosh. Anyone can see that population growth and the growth or more and valuable real estate on vulnerable coasts etc would, other things being equal, lead to an increase in claims over time. Nothing at all to do with global warming/climate change – spurious correlation. The audience at the Royal Institution debate on the same subject last week came to the same conclusion. They threw out the motion. I listened to the debate. http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&id=1000

    Anyway I didn’t notice it at the time but the company whose research Susan Watts drew on was the Munich Re Group. This is a large German insurance company which specialises in the re-insurance of mega weather hazards, acts of God etc. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2009/11/insuring_against_climate_chang.html

    Surprise surprise, what did I find when reading up about The Climate Group and Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, just now? Munich Re is there on the list of members! (Munich Re was also quoted in the Royal Institution debate – so obviously a player!)
    http://www.theclimategroup.org/our-members/munich-re

    Now call me suspicious but The Climate Group funds the IIGCC. IIGCC’s Director is also director of the BBC’s Pension Fund, Peter Dunscombe. Susan Watts is a BBC so-called BBC “scientist”, she consults Munich Re Group in order to promote a story about extreme weather at a time when the IPCC’s proxies at CRU UEA are under fire.

    Is it just a coincidence?

    What about the cross connections between The Climate Group, WWF and The Meteorological Office? Why are there two former top brass of ther WWF now heading the UK Meteorological Office? Why is the former Director of The Climate Group, Robin Napier now Chairman of the Board at the UK Met Office?

    It’s depressing. The swines are entrenched in public life. How will we ever dislodge them and their pernicious ideology of “climatechangeism”? I feel a bit depressed, I must admit. Cheer me up, someone!

  145. marchesarosa says:

    I have twice tried to post a message here replying to ScientistforTruth and they just disappears into the ether. Why, please? Am I persona non grata?

    REPLY: No, but you did have more than three links in it, which automatically trips the spam filter. Restored. – Anthony

  146. marchesarosa says:

    Maybe it was too long. Is their a word limit?

  147. Patrick Davis says:

    And as can be seen fro the graphic, the MDB is a rather large area, probably as large if not larger than Texas.

  148. Tenuc says:

    R. Gates (11:02:48) :
    “Tenuc, if you believe the world could see 6 degrees C of warming without losing all arctic sea ice and probably melting most of the permafrost as well, then we have very little scientific basis for agreement. No point in answering or responding to you. Good day…

    Oh dear, sorry your feeling a bit sulky – though it must me hard for you having to live your life in terror of what the future climate could bring. Don’t let your sense of humour fail, the only thing certain about climate is change.

    Regarding ice at the North Pole…

    At the current level of global mean temperature (in the unlikely event the numbers of right, of course) there are approx 90 days above the freezing point of sea water (271 Kelvin), based on the period 1958 to 2002.

    In the very unlikely event that global mean temperature went up by 6 Kelvin, then the number of days above freezing would be 125 days, again based on the above period.

    So, simplistically, the effect of the change would be a reduction in sea ice as there would be an increase of around 12% in the number of days above freezing point of sea water. So your premise of “losing all arctic sea ice” is clearly wrong.

    In addition, less Arctic ice could have many benefits to shipping, fishing, underwater oil and natural gas production, the lumber industry, tourism etc.

    In the words of the famous Dire Straits song – Why Worry

    “Baby I see this world has made you sad
    Some people can be bad
    The things they do, the things they say
    But baby I’ll wipe away those bitter tears
    I’ll chase away those restless fears
    That turn your blue skies into grey.
    :-))

  149. KL says:

    I was at a conference where this paper was presented. It seemed to be that Karoly (et al) correlated higher temperatures & higher evapotranspiration with drought and concluded that it was the higher temperatures & evaportranspiration CAUSED the drought. The authors of the more recent paper actually tested which way the correlation worked and established that the drought (and higher Sunshine hours due to lack of rain) caused the higher evapotranspiration and drought. They made the point that you can’t claim every severe event is due to “climate change”

    Also on the MDB “no rainfall deficit issue” – the north area (above the sub tropical ridge which runs EW from about Sydney to Perth) has had increased rainfall. (that area is in a summer dominated rainfall area), while the southern area (which has autumn winter dominated rainfall) has had decreased rainfall – particularly in autumn. During that time there has been v. few large rainfall events in this region. This has affected water supply (Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra etc) as the overall rainfall reduction has been magnified in the run-off reduction. This is the case even in areas with no farm/agricultural extraction.

    There is still some speculation as to why this has occurred – it is a different pattern to the other droughts in the “good record”. One theory is that it is due to a flipping of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) which affects the passage of cold fronts in South Eastern Australia. There is not enough long-term data to tell if this is due to natural variability or otherwise.

  150. Ron Broberg says:

    Snowfall increase in coastal East Antarctica linked with southwest Western Australian drought

    Tas D. van Ommen1 & Vin Morgan, 2010

    Abstract

    The southwest corner of Western Australia has been subject to a serious drought in recent decades. A range of factors, such as natural variability and changes in land use, ocean temperatures and atmospheric circulation, have been implicated in this drought, but the ultimate cause and the relative importance of the various factors remain unclear. Here we report a significant inverse correlation between the records of precipitation at Law Dome, East Antarctica and southwest Western Australia over the instrumental period, including the most recent decades. This relationship accounts for up to 40% of the variability on interannual to decadal timescales, and seems to be driven by the meridional circulation south of Australia that simultaneously produces a northward flow of relatively cool, dry air to southwest Western Australia and a southward flow of warm, moist air to East Antarctica. This pattern of meridional flow is consistent with some projections of circulation changes arising from anthropogenic climate change. The precipitation anomaly of the past few decades in Law Dome is the largest in 750 years, and lies outside the range of variability for the record as a whole, suggesting that the drought in Western Australia may be similarly unusual.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo761.html

  151. Sam says:

    @ Marchesarosa:

    Let’s not forget that the Climategate story (the presence of the CRU emails etc on a public server) was given first to the BBC – who sat on it for three weeks, iirc.

    Now we know what we do about the pension fund, that decison seems less extraordinary – I wonder who really made it! Maybe it wasn’t just a failure of journalistic antenna

  152. Geoff Sherrington says:

    My reference to psychiatry was not fully in jest.

    It is a given that some people do acquire obsessive/compulsive behaviour, OCB, sometimes shown by physical actions like repeated hand-washing or ball-washing between rounds of golf; or sometimes by trains of thought that are rather different to the mainstream to a degree that warrants professional investigation. An example of the latter would be a religious belief so strong that the believer uses suicide bombs on the body.

    Completely avoiding the individual case and referring only to the general case, there is no measurement or test to show that an individual in a particular situation or occupation is immune from OCB. It is an illness that can strike at random and sometimes without the patient knowing he/she is ill. It can, in one sub-form, be a group event such as hysteria reported particularly among groups of teenage girls, which might be initiated by one person then taken up by others who witness the start of the action.

    Even on statistical probability, there is a chance that one or more climate scientists is affected. There is also a finite probability that bloggers here are affected, perchance me. If a condition is found, it can be ignored or it can be teated with whatever success is possible. Succeess or failure apart, it is important that the suspect group or person be identified so that bystanders can choose to be affected or not.

    One, but one, of the characteristics of OCB can be that the sick person tries to do too much too soon, like the Mad Hare of Lewis Carroll. In financial business, some individuals get very rich very quickly through frantic effort. Many of them collapse soon after. In the academic world, I view with suspicion those people who publish early and often on disputable topics.

    The trouble starts when one has to distinguish between real skill in science and real OCB in science. I’m not expert to do this except in a few specialist fields of experience, but that does not stop me harbouring suspicions.

    Some of these suspicions have been expressed on a blog that needs more mention in the context of this thread, namely the excellent series of articles by Dr David Stockwell on Niche Modeling, about the CSIRO “Drought Exceptional Circumstances report”

    http://landshape.org/enm/decr-review-reviewer-1/

    Highly recommended for David’s analysis and publications such as

    International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, … David R.B. Stockwell, Anthony Cox … (International Journal of Forecasting, doi:10.1016, May 2009).

  153. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Patrick Davis (18:58:06) :

    Heck, we have farms in Australia bigger than Texas.

  154. J.Peden says:

    Luke:

    Ruse 3 – pretend AGW science doesn’t know/care about natural variability

    No argument about that item: AGW science knew about natural variability and obviously “cared” enough to try to erase the MWP, which in 1995 the ipcc itself had admitted as existent and at least as warm as present, given the course of temp from 1995 on.

  155. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Ron Broberg (19:44:42) :

    Article published on line 7th Feb 2010, fast work in referencing it. Thanks!

    If my coords and Google Earth are about right, there is some 3,200 km between Law Dome Antarctica and the wheatfields of West Australia. That’s 2,000 miles. It seems a long way to make a cause-effect connection, especially when there are competing explanations such as Dr Caroline Ummenhofer and Professor Matthew England in GRL referenced above.

  156. mandolinjon says:

    Dugetit (10:23:50)
    D. King (11:33:13)
    I didn’t mind when they called me a denier or a stooge for anti American activists. But what I read behind the lines in this post

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5086

    from climaterealists is that the Obama Administration has set up a site to act as thought police on climate change to counter the posts that are undermining AGW. What conspiracy? This could be because Hansen has lost credibility as the result of supporting IPCC which is falling from the sky like Icarus when he flew too close to the sun. This will protect the administration from being caught when IPCC is totally discredited and will provide a source for fighting against climate change with more half truths. Hey Mr. Orwell, where are you?

  157. janama says:

    Patrick Davis (18:58:06) :

    Heck, we have farms in Australia bigger than Texas.

    and you oughta see our grasshoppers!

  158. 3x2 says:

    Luke (13:22:01) :

    Homeless now Luke?
    Please tell me this is just a brief visit to WUWT.

  159. Ralph says:

    >>Professor Phil Jones from the University of East
    >> Anglia’s Climate Research Unit – the expert at
    >>the centre of the Climategate scandal – said he
    >>had considered suicide

    Yes, but only to get the sympathy vote from liberals.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7018484.ece

    .

  160. Treeman says:

    Now that super funds manipulation has been revealed it must surely be time for SNOUTS-IN-THE-TROUGH-GATE

  161. Roger Knights says:

    Curiousgeorge (15:08:22) :

    RE: the new Climate Service: Here’s another jewel:

    The NOAA announcement brought quick praise from Sierra Club President Carl Pope: “As polluters and their allies continue to try and muddy the waters around climate science, the Climate Service will provide easy, direct access to the valuable scientific research undertaken by government scientists and others.”

    Perhaps this outfit is needed because they fear that Gavin’s work during business hours at RC can no longer continue.

  162. Rastus says:

    ” Gets even worse for denialists. Lockart et al will be comprehensively rebutted in an upcoming GRL.”

    Says this Luke character..now how would eh know this if he is on on the inside to something

    That seems to be inferring that they have stiched up the Peer Review process and have something in the pipe line to correct some stuff they dont like in the Lockart paper, a la the CRU emails revelations

    Wouldnt be too surprising if that is the case

  163. Sou says:

    To what does the renowned climate scientist, Andrew Bolt, attribute the lack of cloud cover, higher temperatures, deficiency of rainfall and the lessening of evaporation from the therefore drier land, which together describe the big drought in south eastern Australia?

    And is there any reference available for the paper in Geophysical Research Letters? If not, could someone provide the names of the authors?

  164. Veronica (England) says:

    Scientist for Truth

    “There is a MASSIVE conflict of interest in the UK. If you knew that your pension was being invested in enterprises that would be practically worthless if the AGW scam was exposed, do you think you would be willing to run news or articles that would expose the scam?”

    Any pension fund can sell its investments in a particular company and re-invest the money elsewhere. Fund managers do this all the time, so where the BBC happens to have its pension money invested isn’t a huge problem.

    However you are right to identify that there is a problem and that is the vested interest of Peter Dunscombe. As long as he is so closely allied with certain green projects, and also the pensions manager of the BBC, there is a temptation for those on the BBC who either know or care where their pensions are invested, to try to influence the profile of green issues and thus inflate the value of their investments. I’m trying to work out whether that would be illegal under any Financial Services legislation, or just a rather dubious temptation.

    Supposing I held shares in a pharma company. If I were to spread the word via various media that one of its drugs was the greatest cure for cancer that money can buy, and it wasn’t, in order to inflate the value of my shares… erm… would that be legal in any way?

  165. Luke says:

    Yawn – hardly Rastus – denialist errors are simply errors. Oh dear – another beatup and try-on dispensed with.

  166. Geoff Sherrington says:

    Sou (03:00:39) :

    Andrew Bolt is a well known newspaper columnist and commentator for a major Australian newspaper. He is very careful with attributions and references. He seldom pulls a personal opinion out of the air, unsupported.

    Irrespective of content, his conduct is correct.

    In particular, he does not attempt to silence those with opposing views as you appear to be attempting here.

    This is a blog about science. If you have scientific evidence that material is suspect, your preferred action is to provide the material that supports your doubt.

Comments are closed.