It was only a matter of time. NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth plays the never ending blame game.
Scientists see climate change link to Australian floods
SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Climate change has likely intensified the monsoon rains that have triggered record floods in Australia’s Queensland state, scientists said on Wednesday, with several months of heavy rain and storms still to come.
But while scientists say a warmer world is predicted to lead to more intense droughts and floods, it wasn’t yet possible to say if climate change would trigger stronger La Nina and El Nino weather patterns that can cause weather chaos across the globe.
“I think people will end up concluding that at least some of the intensity of the monsoon in Queensland can be attributed to climate change,” said Matthew England of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
“The waters off Australia are the warmest ever measured and those waters provide moisture to the atmosphere for the Queensland and northern Australia monsoon,” he told Reuters.
…
The rains have been blamed on one of the strongest La Nina patterns ever recorded. La Nina is a cooling of ocean temperatures in the east and central Pacific, which usually leads to more rain over much of Australia, Indonesia and other parts of Southeast Asia.
This is because the phenomena leads to stronger easterly winds in the tropics that pile up warm water in the western Pacific and around Australia. Indonesia said on Wednesday it expected prolonged rains until June.
…
Prominent U.S. climate scientist Kevin Trenberth said the floods and the intense La Nina were a combination of factors.
He pointed to high ocean temperatures in the Indian Ocean near Indonesia early last year as well as the rapid onset of La Nina after the last El Nino ended in May.
“The rapid onset of La Nina meant the Asian monsoon was enhanced and the over 1 degree Celsius anomalies in sea surface temperatures led to the flooding in India and China in July and Pakistan in August,” he told Reuters in an email.
He said a portion, about 0.5C, of the ocean temperatures around northern Australia, which are more than 1.5C above pre-1970 levels, could be attributed to global warming.
===========================================================
Read the entire news article here
Below is the Nino3.4 index from the WUWT Enso/Sea level page here
Note that in late 2007 and early 2008, a La Niña even deeper than the one we are in now occurred. Now we are quickly coming off a strong El Niño, so no doubt there would be some heat left in SST’s and some additional water vapor in the region. The current SST image shows it rather warm around Australia. Of course, it is summer there. You can also see the current strong La Niña in blue
An ode to the marvels of CO2
There once was a molecule of gas
whose actions simply bordered on crass:
Causing heat, rain amd snow,
drought and floods (don’t you know?)
And the wastage of oodles of cash
The cyclic nature of our weather patterns in an historic context will be somewhat against the future projections and prognostications of this Trenberth fellow.
My best guess would be a maximum of two years before he is proclaiming the evil CO2 is causing a mini age, I fear for this mans sanity as a cooling earth makes a mockery of his diatribe.
In other words, Ambulance chasing.
These losers can try, but the world is catching on. The AGW crowd are on their last legs, scrambling for any information that might bolster their religion.
The Qld floods are a monument to nature, that we have to learn with, just as we see in Brazil today with many more dead. The next 20 years will see more of this unrest. These events are not unprecedented and have occurred many times in our history before CO2 was a man made problem (in his mind). The Qld floods were bigger in 1974 and bigger again in 1890. Perhaps some of these idiots will get on board and recognize that global weather patterns change when the Sun is quiet.
Matthew England (Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Sydney):
“I think people will end up concluding that at least some of the intensity of the monsoon in Queensland can be attributed to climate change.”
Please note the double twist in this statement. It is not he, a proper scientist who would end up with such a crackpot conclusion, no way, but “people”. It’s the general populace who would attribute “at leas some of the intensity” to climate change.
He himself says nothing about the connection between flood & cAGW, just expresses his opinion about people (they’re dumb, or at least some 50% of them are dumber than average – BTW this happens to be the basic theorem of marketing).
It’s also worth mentioning that this statement falls entirely outside of his field of expertise. After all he is supposed to be an expert in climate science, not in PR or political marketing.
It’s my opinion that the term “climate change” is liberally thrown around if the speaker/writer thinks there is any chance of monetary gain.
The source of the news is Reuters. Compare it with another article 3 years ago expressing the opposite:
Reuters today:
Scientists see climate change link to Australian floods
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70B1XF20110112
Reuters 3 years ago:
Australia drought is climate change warning: UK
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSPEK15498020070427
With such a long history of Flooding it seems very strange not to have spent a lot of money on mitigation because the cost of letting it flood even once is enormous.
Could it be that the authorities completely swallowed the AGW drought story, either way it smacks of total incompetence. Perhaps they are all ex UK politicians and local authorities.
“Mark Twang says:
January 13, 2011 at 12:29 am
They actually have reporters assigned as full-time Climate Change Correspondents now?
Get yer degree today from the Internat’l Climate Change Correspondence School!
Western culture is doomed.”
Yes, the leading Norwegian newspaper has had a number of dedicated “Climate Change Journalists employed for several years already. It is a truly mindless warmist paper unfortunately. The journalists/activists in question are simply the mouth piece of the prominent climategate warmists, MetOffice, national Climatic Research Units (all warmists) and the IPCC. Never a critical question asked. Their articles are usually no more than a one sided propagandized reiteration of warmist spin of the day.
They will go out of their way to find something or someone they can quote in order to pin anything to “Climate Change”, while they make sure not to report the other side of the story or anything uttered from a sceptic. Likewise, these journalists will bend backwards to hide or explain away inconvenient facts or incidents. The very opposite of objective and investigating journalism. I think the term “propaganda” very accurately describes what they are doing.
Of course, what can you expect when their position is “Climate Change Journalist”? When accepting that title, they have already sided with the warmists. Their jobs depend on continuous public interest and support of the theory of AGW? They and the other warmists have a common interest in not reporting anything inconvenient. Thus, their interest is to keep the gravy train going and justify their own posistion and salary.
No newspaper should ever employ a “Climate Change Journalist”. The very concept is against the virtues of good journalism.
Our biggest idiot David Karoly is also playing the harp with the same tune. This guy is a national disgrace that our unfortunate government still listens to.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/karolys_global_warming_wetter_drier_worse_better_whatever/
The first catastrophist scientist to blame the floods on AGW was a local, David Karoly:
The strongest La Nina in recorded history? Well, we won’t know that until after the La Nina phase is over, but according to “some measures” (in this instance, the Southern Oscillation Index), this La Nina is “super strong”. Here is how one goes about explaining it (I am quoting a mouthful just to illustrate the amount of waffling):
I can buy a marginally less credible but equally unsatisfying explanation from my local Astrologer for 50 bucks.
And in Case Anthony Watts has missed it, two mails by another academic appended to an update to an Andrew Bolt blog post are worth its own separate post on WUWT:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/karolys_global_warming_wetter_drier_worse_better_whatever/
If you live in Australia and listen to radio and TV, you could have heard two quite different statements.
Neville Nicholls, who is a senior BOM professional (and often mentioned in Climategate, tending to the AGW view) noted that the Jan 2011 Queensland floods could not be attributed to man-made climate change because there was inadequate prior data on which to work.
David Karoly ( a lead author in both IPCC 2007 and 2002) explicitly stated that carbon dioxide had caused climate change showing as high sea surface temperatures (holding up a BOM graph which I cannot find on the Net), which combined with a strong La Nina to bring south-easterly winds over the ocean where evaporation was heightened by the temperature, which he said was 0.2 degrees C above earlier levels.
Take your pick. Or, if you are wise, don’t try to explain occasional extreme weather events unless you are an expert. And even then, desist.
Anyone with knowledge of the the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation effect would have easily predicted the floods in Qld. Yet it caught most by surprise. Why? Simply because the AGW propaganda fooled almost everyone. Seriously, it’s time to put the AGW alarmists behind bars for fraud and deceit.
Some commentators say the flood is no stronger than it was in 1974, and that is quite believable. The difference between then and now is that now we have instant pictures and live interviews coming from the disaster area and receiving prime time T.V. on every TV channel around the world, the story being told instantly as it unfolds through many professional and non-professional on-the-spot news gatherers and beamed to the world via satelites. Everyone is now able to record the story on personal cam corders, moving pictures on private phones, and digital pictures on private cameras all complementing the work of the professional journalists on the spot, so much so that we all now share in the tragedy as if it was unfolding on our doorsteps. On the other hand, in 1974, Australia was another world thousands of miles away and difficult to communicate with, so we were not too interested in the terrible flooding problems that they were encountering at that time..
All the serious floods in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries in Queensland happened after witches were no longer executed. This will lead the people to the clear conclusion that the cause of the floods be witches. Beware ye witches.
John Oxley was commissioned by the Governor of New South Wales to survey the Brisbane River with the view of establishing a settlement on Morton Bay.
Here is an extract from his diary, also posted on the BOM web site ( http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml ), which shows that there were much greater floods prior to white settlement and probably before Captain Cook sailed along the east coat in 1770.
John Oxley, early explorer, mentioned evidence of an inundation which he discovered on 19 September 1824 in an area north of the junction of the Bremer with the Brisbane : “the starboard bank an elevated flat of rich land, declining to a point where had evidently by its sandy shore and pebbly surface, been at some time washed by an inundation; a flood would be too weak an expression to use for a collection of water rising to the full height (full fifty feet) which the appearance of the shore here renders possible.”
I guess it was Cook’s twin 16 cylinder Detroit diesels in the Endeavour that kicked off AGW in Australia.
Once again I am annoyed by that NOAA “SST anomaly” graphic which is incapable of showing em>no anomaly. It simply cannot show it.
Another thing it can’t show is the situation back in the 19th century when these deviations of the monsoon were apparently quite frequent. If there is a climate change story to be spun out of the dreadful situation in Queensland, it is that climate change has made catastrophic flooding less frequent and this event is an increasingly rare anomaly. Why are they attempting to insinuate that the climate has changed for the worse? It’s not science.
Once again I am annoyed by that NOAA “SST anomaly” graphic which is incapable of showing no anomaly. It simply cannot show it.
Another thing it can’t show is the situation back in the 19th century when these deviations of the monsoon were apparently quite frequent. If there is a climate change story to be spun out of the dreadful situation in Queensland, it is that climate change has made catastrophic flooding less frequent and this event is an increasingly rare anomaly. Why are they attempting to insinuate that the climate has changed for the worse? It’s not science.
Domingo Tavella says:
January 13, 2011 at 2:17 am
With all due respect to those writing here, practically the totality of those expressing their opinions are not really qualified to comment on energy and mass transport phenomena any more than they are qualified to opine on polymer engineering or molecular biology. How about getting a PhD in climatology or other relevant field first and only then writing on this complex subject (in a peer-reviewed journal, please) with some level of authority?
That was your quote, Domingo, now, a couple of quotes from those you hold in such high regard….
“I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor, a well-known skeptic in NZ. A CRU person is on the board but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.”
And….
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that — take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”
Yes, that’s the thing about having a PhD, it makes you so honest and trustworthy.
May I suggest that Mr Trenberth is put on ” [/snip] watch” with immediate effect!
[…bl57~mod]
Sooooooooooo…
Building on a flood plain. Is it a good idea?
The Australians, and the BBC, think it is due to La Nina which always drenches Queensland with water.
Not exactly OT-
Happy snap of frog riding snake-
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/01/frog-rides-a-snake-to-escape-floods-in-australia.php
Trenberth is one of the world leading experts on the ENSO.
He should know that this is a completely typical climate response in this scenario.
The pattern is even produced in maps about the climate impacts of a La Nina (which are accentuated a little when a strong La Nina follows a strong El Nino).
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/impacts/cold.gif
And what has happened over the last 3 months. Almost exactly what the climate impact maps say normally happens. It is scary accurate even. [The bottom panel here is the relevant one].
http://cawcr.gov.au/staff/mwheeler/maproom/OLR/m.l3m.html
On Andrew Bolt’s blog of January 13—-
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/karolys_global_warming_wetter_drier_worse_better_whatever
—– Associate Professor Stuart Franks giving some long overdue feedback to one of our most breathless alarmists and darling of the Australian media, David Karoly.
[ Associate Professor Stewart Franks of Newcastle University writes to the ABC to protest its repeated use of an alarmist who may say what it wants to hear, but is not actually an expert:
Dear Mr Uhlmann
I would like to protest the repeated interviews with Prof David Karoly with regard to the Queensland floods.
Since 2003, I have published a number of papers in the top-ranked international peer-reviewed literature regarding the role of La Nina in dictating Eastern Australian floods.
There has been no evidence of CO2 in affecting these entirely natural processes, irrespective of their devastating nature.
Why is it then, that someone without any publication nor insight in this key area of concern for Australia is repeatedly called upon to offer his personal speculation on this topic?
This is not a new problem with Prof. Karoly.
In 2003, he published, under the auspices of the WWF, a report that claimed that elevated air tempertatures, due to CO2, exacerbated the MDB drought. To quote…
‘…the higher temperatures caused a marked increase in evaporation rates, which sped up the loss of soil moisture and the drying of vegetation and watercourses. This is the first drought in Australia where the impact of human-induced global warming can be clearly observed…’
The problem with this is that Prof Karoly had confused cause and effect.
During a drought, moisture is limited. The sun shines on the land surface, and as moisture is limited, evaporation is constrained, and consequently the bulk of the sun’s energy goes into surface heating which itself leads to higher air temperatures. This effect can be as much as 8-10 degrees celsius.
This is a common confusion made by those who have not studied the interaction of the land surface hydrology and atmosphere, as Prof. Karoly has not.
Undoubtably Prof Karoly has expertise but not in the area of hydrology or indeed in many other areas on which the ABC repeatedly calls on him for ‘expert’ comment.
Could I please ask that you cast your net a little wider in seeking expertise? These issues are too important for the media commont to be the sole domain of commited environmental advocates. Surely objective journalism also requires objective science?
Sincere best wishes,
A/Prof Stewart W. Franks
Dean of Students
And to Karoly himself, this email:
David
Your comments on the role of CO2 in the Qld floods are speculative at best, immensely damaging at worst.
When will you accept that CO2 is not the answer to everything? When will you decline an interview for the lack of your insight?
Have you not learnt from your physically incorrect speculation about temperature and evaporation during the MDB drought? Do you have no shame to have confused cause and effect in such a brazen and public manner?
Is it enough for you that your pronouncements sound correct, irrespective of science? Have you learnt nothing?
You are arguably the best example of the corruption of the IPCC process, and the [/snip] that academia has sunk to.
Shame on you
Stewart
Franks was interviewed by the ABC’s PM program, as was Karoly, on the alleged affect of man-made warming on the floods. The alarmist’s opinion was broadcast, and the expert’s was not. ]
[Let’s leave the vulgarity out…K? … bl57~mod]