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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hugh Pepper said:
Changing climate results in increased evaporation and this affects the availability of water, meaning that we have less water for irrigation, and the rainfall patterns are changing all over the world. The rain still falls, but not necessarily where it is needed, and it often falls in deluges, saturating shallow aquifers and surfaces, resulting in massive flooding, as we now see in Australia. As a consequence, most of this water will flow back to the sea, rather than adequately recharging the aquifers thereby enabling an orderly ecological function which underpins community and economic stability.
——————————————————————–
Hugh, I cannot comment on conditions in the US, but in Australia floods are precisely what recharges the aquifers. It takes weeks, sometimes months, for floodwaters to make their way out to sea. Quite a lot of that water either recharges aquifers, or simply is absorbed deep into the soil for future use of plants.
I have no idea what ‘rain falls, but not necessarily where it is needed’ means. Is rain supposed to somehow zero in at times and places where it suits a particular human activity?
Also, if ‘climate change results in increased evaporation’, where does the water go? Are you saying that there is a cunning plan whereby it only precipitates at sea?
It’s cold, It’s Global warming
It’s warm, it’s Global warming…
Lyrics By Schneider and Trenberth
Music by Karoly
Marketing, every MSM worldwide
“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.”
On the contrary, taxpayers and citizens all have a right to comment in a free country. They are the ones that pay the price for the mistakes make by politicians and scientists.
Brisbane en 1841
http://riensavoir.free.fr/IMG/jpg/Brisbane.jpg
7.3 mag Earthquake in Pacific ocean
1,000 miles ENE Brisbane Tsunami alert issued
REPLY: It has been a non-starter, see this:
http://www.weather.gov/ptwc/text.php?id=hawaii.2011.01.13.162700
Anthony
a warmer world is predicted to lead to more intense droughts and floods
Gotta love it when your pet theory predicts everything – that way, you always get to claim you were right.
The problem I have with all this is that neither prediction appears to be supported by the historical record. I may be wrong, but wasn’t the MWP generally BETTER? – I probably need to read more on it, but that’s certainly my take on what little I have studied…
The recently released “State of the Climate Report” from the NIWA (New Zealand) states that the IPO (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation) has entered a negative phase (2000- present) similar to 1947 to 1977 where La Nina’s dominate and El Nino’s weaken. They expect it to last 20 to 30 years.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/publications
They point out that this is opposite from what was predicted to result from the build up of green house gases.
Peter Plail says:
January 13, 2011 at 5:43 am
On a positive note, the BBC is explaining the Australian floods in terms of La Nina, not a mention of CO2 or man as the cause.
Nevertheless, prior to midnight last evening on the preview of Thursday’s nascent papers, the reviewer immediately invoked AGW as the cause and excoriated “THE DENIERS” (yes, he shouted) for being responsible, not just for Queensland, but also for Sri Lanka and Brazil.
Inwardly groaning I switched to Sky News where a similar evaluation of the Dailies was taking place under the chair of Anna Botting, who, I was pleased to see, gave short shrift to a noble Baroness and incumbent of our House of Lords, who expounded the same illiterate claptrap, by explaining to her that La Nina was to blame.
It was quite apparent from the noble B’s reply that she had absolutely no idea what she was talking about and had never read anything about the subject, yet she and her similarly ill informed colleagues in both Houses get to make decisions from their positions of willful ignorance on matters which may subsequently turn out to be of life or death .
On a positive note Anna Bligh, the State Premier of Queensland must be applauded for her TV appearances during the disaster. Her grasp of a fast moving and diverse situation, and steely determination tempered with a palpable compassion for her people, contrasted sharply with the uninspiringly sepulchral, robotic and monotonic performance of the Prime Minister.
I have no idea of her politics, but Anna is certainly the girl to have on your side when disasters of magnitude occur!
To be fair to true believers, increased heat might produce more rain and more drought. The temperature trend might be upward, and the precipitation extremes might be more pronounced.
The problem is that the climate models did not predict this (see the IPCC report), and they cannot account for the history of floods and droughts (when human produced CO2 cannot have been the cause).
But – true believers – how about making a prediction or two that can be compared with future events? What will the rainfall be next year in Australia? What will the snow fall in Europe or the US be next winter? Establishing a track record of accurate climate predictions would do much to restore confidence in climatology.
Currently climatology seems to be an endeavor which cannot explain past behavior (without attempting to ‘correct’ the records of the past), cannot make testable predictions of the future, and simply and endlessly repeats the mantra that CO2 is bad in the present.
@richcar 1225:
Rich, you should probably delve a little deeper into that publication from NZ, which clearly states that:
Beyond the large year-to-year variations in our climate, there has been a strong warming trend over the country. The best fit linear trend….is a change of 1.1 degrees C from 1900 – 2009.
Trenberth is beneath contempt. He is a pseudo-scientist – a peddler of lies.
“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”.
With all due respect I have two degrees on physics and a lifetime working in energy and mass transport. May I comment, please?
As I said above, Trenberth spouts garbage.
Mac says:
“Beyond the large year-to-year variations in our climate, there has been a strong warming trend over the country. The best fit linear trend….is a change of 1.1 degrees C from 1900 – 2009.”
Actually the latest calculation from NIWA now shows .91 degrees per century. Unfortunately for AGW most of the increase was before 1980. In fact since GHG really took off the temperature increase has slowed significantly. Since the switch to negative IPO in 2000 temperatures have been dropping
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temp-record
Our memories are short lived, and it is worse in case of journalists, in them it only lasts, at the most, only 12 hours: If we could remember as human beings and not like TV screens we could realize that this is the way nature currently works: Now, she is currently engaged in a Solar Minimum, which only WUWT regulars have managed to remember, so pass the word that there are two choices: One is crying, complaining and blaming, the other to buy more popcorn! 🙂
I will post this once more, notice dates 1918, 1954 and 1991 and today,
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Australianfloods3.jpg
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/Ausralianfloodlevels2.jpg
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/ElNino.jpg
http://s446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/?action=view¤t=AustrailianfloodsBris.mp4
How do the warmist explain the continued continental cooling in the U.S. since 1998?
http://thetruthpeddler.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/latest-official-government-data-shows-the-u-s-is-cooling-at-a-rate-of-9-4-def-f-per-century/
Murray Grainger says:
January 13, 2011 at 2:33 am
Wonderful. Duly nicked for my facebook status. I did credit you though. 🙂
DaveE.
It would seem that big smoker next door – Marapi – has more to do with it than a bunch of chinese 1500 miles away.
I guess they are trying to say that volcanos are now carbon neutral?
The Sky News report in the UK tonight linked the Australian floods with the recent heavy rain induced landslides in Brazil, saying they were“…part of a wave of severe weather events sweeping the world..”
As for the Brazil mudslides, January is a heavy time of rain for that region between Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. The mountainous coastal area betwen the two is classed as rain forest and in recent decades has seen a large increase in population, leading to deforestation in many areas.
I recall driving that route in the 1980’s in the month of January and even then being diverted several times due to mudslides washing away roads and bridges. Nothing new in those mudslides, but no doubt other media will spin this, as Sky News have done, into something sinister.
Joey says:
January 13, 2011 at 7:00 am
Very sad, but does this really surprise anyone?
Kind of off topic, but why is everything caused by global warming? Are people that stupid?
======================================================
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” –Albert Einstein
Strange isn’t it that every extreme weather event under the sun can be attributed to global warming – in hindsight – yet, with all our billions of dollars of technology, NONE can be accurately predicted – even hours ahead in some cases, like the devastating flash flooding in Queensland.
@ur momisugly Ecotretas
January 13, 2011 at 5:28 am
Dams have no effect when they are full.
These extreme weather events are cyclical and when they occur the water just runs over the top of man-made structures.
The first big dam built in Australia for drought and flood mitigation was Burrinjuck on the Murrumbidgee in southern NSW.
In the 1974 flood (much later in the year than the one which affected Brisbane) there was enough water coming over the spillway to refill the dam from empty in two days.
Phillip Bratby says:
January 13, 2011 at 9:43 am
“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”.
With all due respect I have two degrees on physics and a lifetime working in energy and mass transport. May I comment, please?
As I said above, Trenberth spouts garbage.”
I have a PhD in Physical Chemistry (I even studied with Mike Mann but don’t tell anyone) and studied thermodynamics specifically: looking at the transport of energy in both ionic clusters (Quantum level) and solid state rearrangement of molecules on surfaces (Quantum and bulk). Does that qualify me to have an opinion?
If so…Trenberth spouts garbage. So does Mike.
Climate change must have been a bit stronger in 1974 then… as those floods which hit brisbane were spread over a much larger area – correspondingly, at that time the river was much higher and they had more rain. Although, i think that part of QLD has had more rain in the last month than they did during the month of the 1974 floods but that flood was primarily concerned with one downpour whilst QLD has been dealing with several of them for a few months.
pecqror says:
January 13, 2011 at 8:35 am
Brisbane en 1841
http://riensavoir.free.fr/IMG/jpg/Brisbane.jpg
=======================================================
Yes (9m plus)and further research suggests that the 1893 flood had a peak of 9.51m and that geological evidence http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/fld_reports/brisbane_jan1974.pdf
indicates a flood some 5.5m above the 1974 flood level (see below). So we have (not listing many of the other floods particularly during 19 Century):
Pre or early 1800’s = 11m + ? (based on geological evidence)
1841 = 9 m + (see above reference)
1893 = 9.51 m (the first peak –see above reference and not 8.53m reported)
1974 = 6.60 m (not 5.5m reported in the media- see below)
2011 = 4.46m (mitigated by between 1 and 2m by the Wivenhoe Dam) therefore probably 5.46m to 6.46m actual.
Note the following from the above BOM reference:
“Prior to 1900 flooding occurred quite frequently at 1 to 8 year intervals
and in one year (1893) four separate floods were recorded. Since 1900 flood
rainfall has been much less frequent and the interval between floods has become much longer.”
And
“according to the Professor of Economic Geology at the University of
Queensland (Professor Sergent), there is geological evidence of water levels 5.5m higher than the 1974 flood in the Indooroopilly area of Brisbane.
Meteorological studies suggest that rainfalls well in excess of those recorded in the floods of 1893 and 1974 are possible. Therefore it seems certain that unless major flood mitigation schemes, such as the proposed Wivenhoe Dam, areimplemented, floods even greater than those of 1974 will again be experienced inBrisbane.”
And regarding the 1974 flood:
“The river rose steadily during Sunday 27 January and attained a peak height of 6.60 m on the high tide at 2.15 am on Tuesday 29 January”