Aussie Climate Scientist Predicts Rainfall Will Change

Climate Economist At Work
Climate Economist At Work

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Aussie Climate Scientist Steve Sherwood, Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, thinks in the future Australia will experience more rain, less rain or something in between.

More rain on the horizon as climate change affects Australia, study finds

Australians will need to batten down the hatches with more intense rain storms predicted as a result of higher humidity driven by a rise in global temperatures.

New findings from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, published in Nature Climate Change on Tuesday, reveal that a two-degree rise in average global temperatures would lead to a 10-30 per cent increase in extreme downpours.

The study’s authors predict that while some parts of the continent will become wetter, others will experience increasing drought.

Steve Sherwood, a professor at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW who contributed to the research, said global warming would have a clear impact on rainfall.

“There is no chance that rainfall in Australia will remain the same as the climate warms,” he said.

“With two degrees of global warming, Australia is stuck with either more aridity, much heavier extreme rains, or some combination of the two.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/more-rain-on-the-horizon-as-climate-change-affects-australia-study-finds-20170115-gts0l1.html

The study referenced by the press article;

Future increases in extreme precipitation exceed observed scaling rates

Models and physical reasoning predict that extreme precipitation will increase in a warmer climate due to increased atmospheric humidity. Observational tests using regression analysis have reported a puzzling variety of apparent scaling rates including strong rates in midlatitude locations but weak or negative rates in the tropics. Here we analyse daily extreme precipitation events in several Australian cities to show that temporary local cooling associated with extreme events and associated synoptic conditions reduces these apparent scaling rates, especially in warmer climatic conditions. A regional climate projection ensemble6 for Australia, which implicitly includes these effects, accurately and robustly reproduces the observed apparent scaling throughout the continent for daily precipitation extremes. Projections from the same model show future daily extremes increasing at rates faster than those inferred from observed scaling. The strongest extremes (99.9th percentile events) scale significantly faster than near-surface water vapour, between 5.7–15% °C−1 depending on model details. This scaling rate is highly correlated with the change in water vapour, implying a trade-off between a more arid future climate or one with strong increases in extreme precipitation. These conclusions are likely to generalize to other regions.

Read more: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3201.html

Sherwood’s University of New South Wales is also home to Climate researcher Chris Turney, leader of the infamous 2013 Ship of Fools expedition to the Antarctic.

Sadly the full study is paywalled. But from the abstract and Sherwood’s comments to the press, in my opinion Sherwood’s prediction seems unfalsifiable. Almost any imaginable future rainfall observation would fit a prediction of more aridity, more rainfall, or something in between.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
158 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
commieBob
January 16, 2017 7:18 pm

Not only rainfall, the whole climate will change. This doesn’t even qualify for an Ig Nobel Prize.

SMC
Reply to  commieBob
January 16, 2017 7:22 pm

It might qualify for publication in JIR (Journal of Irreproducable Results) though.

Greg
Reply to  SMC
January 17, 2017 12:10 am

” the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science,”
When you have to call yourself “excellent” rather than letting others judge that from your work, it’s pretty clear that you know you are not excellent at all. It signals that you know you are mediocre and the best you can do the change that is some pathetic verbal attempt at self-promotion.

Reply to  SMC
January 17, 2017 12:53 am

That’s the one journal that would never publish this piece as the results cater for every contingency.

Hivemind
Reply to  SMC
January 17, 2017 3:04 am

It would be difficult to find any results to reproduce, though. Paywalled is a pretty good indicator of junk science.

schitzree
Reply to  SMC
January 17, 2017 7:39 am

When you have to call yourself “excellent” rather than letting others judge that from your work, it’s pretty clear that you know you are not excellent at all.

Wait, does that mean that ‘Honest Abe’ down at Honest Abe’s Automotive ISN’T the most honest car dealer in town? But… but… but that’s false advertising!
Next you’ll be telling me that Politicians don’t have my best interests at heart or that the mainstream media doesn’t report the unvarnished truth.
^¿^

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  SMC
January 17, 2017 8:01 am

@Greg:
“The rabbi who must praise himself has a congregation of one.”

Bryan A
Reply to  SMC
January 17, 2017 12:26 pm

So, as the climate warms, the atmosphere is capable of holding more ambient moisture…Certainly it would, warmer air can always hold more moisture than colder air. Problem is, those proposed storms would also be warmer and less moisture would Rain Out because their warmer air mass would still want to retain that proposed greater moisture content. So the average rainfall ammounts should still remain relatively constant even whithin the scope of a warmer environment

Auto
Reply to  SMC
January 18, 2017 12:28 pm

It is a bit of a ‘No kidding, Sherlock?’ moment.
Auto

John Robertson
January 16, 2017 7:19 pm

Proving once again that members of The Cult of Calamitous Climate are beyond parody.
With an intro like the above,I will not be funding the “paywall”.

RockyRoad
Reply to  John Robertson
January 16, 2017 9:33 pm

…yes, seeing they do such a fine job of it all by themselves.
*Pass the popcorn, please”…

Leo G
Reply to  John Robertson
January 17, 2017 1:25 am

Following the link to that Sydney Morning Herald story:
“Professor Sherwood warned that current policies worldwide are not enough to meet the Paris targets.
The study found that a four per cent rise in global temperature, possible based on current increases in the rate of carbon emissions, would lead to a 22-60 per cent increase in extreme rain storms.”
A four per cent rise in global mean temperature would be a rise of 11.5 degree Celsius.

Reply to  Leo G
January 17, 2017 3:48 am

Sorry Stephen Sherwood, the percentages are wrong. The climate scales in K, not deg.C. The Paris accord is based on changes of 2-4 deg C, which is approximately a 0.15% change in average temperature. Given 10-20 deg. C or more of local daily variability of variability, none of the temperature records have any chance of finding a change in He–that small.

Reply to  Leo G
January 17, 2017 7:15 am

@philohippous Thanks for pointing out the most basic bit of 8th grade math+science which seems beyond the ken of many on all sides of these discussions . Only in 0 based scales can ratios be discussed . All of these purported effects are asserted to be caused by near noise level , 0.3% , variations in estimated temperature , only a fraction of even our peri- to ap-helion variation . It’s all utter embarrassingly , determinedly bad nonscience .

Rhoda R
January 16, 2017 7:19 pm

Can’t go wrong with a prediction like that.

Douglas
Reply to  Rhoda R
January 16, 2017 8:21 pm

He says:
With two degrees of global warming, Australia is stuck with either more aridity, much heavier extreme rains, or some combination of the two.”
Sherwood, deep in the forest seems pretty safe with that – 2 degrees of global warming seems far enough away from happening to dodge the sheriff of Nottingham makes it hard to see the wood from the trees – maybe long enough to make his getaway from the rope.

richard verney
Reply to  Douglas
January 16, 2017 11:24 pm

If the globe warms 2 degrees, by how much will Australia warm?
What are the predictions, what are the predicted weather fronts?

MarkW
Reply to  Douglas
January 17, 2017 9:54 am

The dry parts will warm more than average.
The wet parts will warm less than average.
The average parts will remain average.

Bunyip
January 16, 2017 7:28 pm

How can you ever take Climate Scientist seriously ? I am embarrassed to be an Australian.

Menicholas
Reply to  Bunyip
January 16, 2017 9:57 pm

The good news is, the ones not to be taken seriously have been doing an outstanding job of identifying themselves.

Hivemind
Reply to  Bunyip
January 17, 2017 3:07 am

Don’t be embarrassed to be an Australian, but you can be embarrassed that the Australian Government is paying money for this crap. When Abbott was in, there was an attempt to clean up this cesspit. That ended when Turnbull pushed him out. I wonder who was behind that little bit of knifework?

Reply to  Bunyip
January 17, 2017 1:55 pm

Don’t be. Governments around the world have been lured into supporting this sort of nonsense. My predictions are that parts of Australia will have prolonged drought, other parts will experience strong storms and heavy rainfall, others will be cold in winter, and other parts hot at times. But, oops, that’s what it always has been like. And Aussies have always coped.

rogerthesurf
January 16, 2017 7:36 pm

“If the rainfall doesn’t change it will remain the same”.
Beat that for a prediction.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

Peter Morris
Reply to  rogerthesurf
January 16, 2017 8:35 pm

Yogi lives!

MarkW
Reply to  rogerthesurf
January 17, 2017 9:54 am

Predicting is hard, especially about the future.

John Harmsworth
January 16, 2017 7:41 pm

It seems falsifiable to me. I spilled rye and coke on my computer and it says the next hundred years of Australian weather will look just like the last hundred. A few record highs and lows, similar rainfall patterns and same average temps. I’m willing to put some money on my bet if the good professor will do likewise. Plus a bottle of premium Canadian rye whiskey against whatever +2.5 toxins they suspend in water down there.

karabar
January 16, 2017 7:42 pm

I predict that if it rains more, things will be wetter, except when it rains less, when things will be drier, maybe.

Menicholas
Reply to  karabar
January 16, 2017 10:02 pm

But, on the other hand, it could rain more often, and over a wider area, but do so less intensely.
He seems to have overlooked that possibility.

jorgekafkazar
January 16, 2017 7:43 pm

This is a joke, right?

Hivemind
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
January 17, 2017 3:09 am

Of course it’s a joke, it’s climate science. And your taxes paid for it.

Geo Jones
January 16, 2017 7:48 pm

Afraid not jorgekafkazar, we have University’s full of them here, mores the pity from a concerned but ageing scientist.

Geoff Sherrington
January 16, 2017 7:55 pm

At those Aust sites we have studied, there is usually a stats link between local daily rainfall and temperature that can account for up to 50% of the variance of temperature. Does rainfall drive temperature? Does temperature drive rainfall? Both each other? Neither?
For examples of the problems, link to see Sydney Observatory http://joannenova.com.au/2017/01/sydney-observatory-where-warming-is-created-by-site-moves-buildings-freeways/
When Sherwood mentions the words “puzzling variety of climate scaling rates” would that be entirely expected because the data are plainly not fit for the purpose he seeks with erudition more than common sense?

Macha
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 17, 2017 2:20 pm

Well Geoff, there are a few like me that say pressure drives temperature…and wind moves it about. junk article seems most accurate prediction.
I was amused by local weather reports that says 50% chance of rain. To me, that meant even chance it will or won’t, but apparently it means half my suburb has 100% chance of rain. Doh?!

joelobryan
January 16, 2017 7:57 pm

Unfalsifiable “scientific” claims are of course pseudoscience.
This guy Sherwood might as well get out his Tarot cards or Ouiji board and prognosticate about changing climate and rainfall patterns. They’ll give same or better results as his “models and physical reasoning” predictions.

joelobryan
Reply to  joelobryan
January 16, 2017 8:08 pm

Here is my recommendation for Dr. Sherwood’s next generation climate calculator.
http://i65.tinypic.com/2ym6t0l.jpg

Peter Morris
Reply to  joelobryan
January 16, 2017 8:36 pm

Shoot. Why even make it that complicated? Just use a magic 8-ball.

Menicholas
Reply to  joelobryan
January 16, 2017 10:05 pm

All signs point to yes!

MarkW
Reply to  joelobryan
January 17, 2017 9:55 am

Ask again

Dan Davis
Reply to  joelobryan
January 17, 2017 10:27 am

This may have been part of the data source. No PayWall here!comment image

john karajas
January 16, 2017 8:09 pm

Australian academia is truly blessed with a bunch of first-rate climate ?scientist galahs (my apologies to that particular species of parrot)!

clipe
Reply to  vicgallus
January 17, 2017 2:37 pm

In the reader’s comments.
Stephen
2 days ago
I note that the human race has all grown significantly taller in the past 200 years. Global warming?

January 16, 2017 8:12 pm

“11% more rain” sounds costly (not!). But almost always the carbon loons have to imply some kind of extreme economic cost to climate change. The alleged future costs are supposed to scare us. But the truth is that if there were any climate costs at all to CO2 those would be minimal, and pale in comparison to the upwards of $1 trillion a year we’re already spending on the leftist scam.
What about the benefits of CO2, like arguably many trillions of dollars a year in increased agricultural productivity, benefits which far outweigh any future costs by orders of magnitude:
Tom Nelson @tan123 https://twitter.com/tan123/status/821004381621538817
.@Maribellasmom No offense, but the notion of CO2-induced starvation is utter #ClimateScamBS:comment image

Chris
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 16, 2017 10:56 pm

What is the basis for your statement ” arguably many trillions of dollars a year in increased agricultural productivity, benefits which far outweigh any future costs by orders of magnitude.”?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Chris
January 17, 2017 8:15 am

I’m sorry, did you miss the graphs, all showing an increase in crop yields as a function of time or are you just invincibly ignorant? Many in fact show a sharp increase in yield growth around 1950, at which time the IPCC claims CO2 production began to affect climate. Live by the assumption, die by the assumption.

Rob Bradley
Reply to  Chris
January 17, 2017 9:06 am

D. J. Hawkins, nice graphs, and they do show a correlation. As you well know, correlation is not causation. Tell me how you were able to eliminate things like improved irrigation, increased fertilizers, new crop strains and superior weed control from your graphs?

Reply to  Chris
January 17, 2017 2:31 pm

You are right in your trade figures, but there is far more to food than merely the income generated from just selling it. I have extracted the food energy per capita per day for developing countries from the FAO data. In 1960 it was 2054 and in 2015 it had climbed to 2980 Kcal/person/day. This huge and welcome increase greatly improved the longevity, health and productivity of the people. Most African countries are now amongst the fastest developing countries on earth – thank goodness – whereas once they were regarded by external agencies as being hopeless basket cases. There are many factors that have contributed to this wonderful development (aid is probably one of the weakest “driver”) but improved CO2 concentration is certainly very important as studies going back many decades have indicated. Plant productivity has been severely limited by CO2 depletion in the past, even in corn fields in the US. Improved food availability has had massive beneficial effects on the developing world. None of these benefits are adequately captured by simple trade figures.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
January 17, 2017 10:28 pm

DJ Hawkins, first, the trend lines in the graphs are a result of many different factors – increased use of fertilizers, better strains of wheat, etc, increased use of irrigation, better crop techniques (like zero tilling to reduce topsoil erosion). Assigning all of those to CO2 is not valid. Second, as I noted below, the entire agricultural industry globally is $3T, so saying “many trillions of dollars a year in increased agricultural productivity” is not true.

Chris
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 16, 2017 10:58 pm

The entire global agricultural industry produces US$3T a year, and yet you are saying CO2 alone has increased that by many trillions. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.CD

Dan Hawkins
Reply to  Chris
January 17, 2017 8:46 am

And,
what if the World bank is measuring in long scale trillions, while Eric Simpson is talking short scale? Plenty of misunderstandings arise from these two different naming conventions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales
Dan

Hivemind
Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 17, 2017 3:12 am

I just noticed that 11% more rain bit. If that is what is being promised, then I say bring it on. Australia is a dry country and would benefit from 100% more rain.

old construction worker
January 16, 2017 8:35 pm

“prediction seems unfalsifiable” Maybe, maybe not. I bet someone has already looked into rainfall patterns from the Minoan, Rome warm period and MWP. I know, you don’t have to say it. “But this time it’s different”.

Bryan A
Reply to  old construction worker
January 17, 2017 10:07 pm

Well of course it’s different now. Roman Warm Period Then it was CO2 @ 280 ppm today it is CO2 @ 405 ppm. Then it was 300m people, now 7.3b people so lots of changes

David S
January 16, 2017 8:40 pm

From a scientific perspective I would more trust the words of Dorothea Mackellar’s my country.. ” I love a sunburnt country , a land of sweeping plains, of jagged mountain ranges, of droughts and flooding rains. ”
I think this pre AGW poem pretty much describes Australia’s climate future and its past.

Reply to  David S
January 17, 2017 6:24 am

Nice.

Macha
Reply to  David S
January 17, 2017 2:28 pm

+1!!!

Mike the Morlock
January 16, 2017 8:41 pm

Okay, no problem,,
First determine where on the coast these storms will land, the bulldoze the near by mountains as the rains will move into the “outback” (?) then plant. See now I’m a “Climate Scientist” . Do I get a decoder ring or something?
Oh you guys in Oz do have bulldozers.
(note, my cousin, she married an Australian so all is fair)
michael

Joe
January 16, 2017 8:54 pm

It is truly amazing what missing heat can do

Crispin in Waterloo
January 16, 2017 9:10 pm

“The study’s authors predict that while some parts of the continent will become wetter, others will experience increasing drought.”
Then all we will have to do is ‘geoengineer’ some parts of Australia to bring the water from the wet areas to the dry areas.
They are called ‘canals’. Problem solved.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 16, 2017 10:38 pm

LOL

joelobryan
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 16, 2017 10:53 pm

SoCal already does that on a grand scale. They are suckin’ the Sierra’s plumb dry (unless they get above average rainfall every year). (The Lake Wobegon theory, where every kid is above average intel).
http://mavensphotoblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/dwr-edmonston-pumping-plant-3-50-pct.jpg
And also sucking water from the Colorado River.
http://www.mwdh2o.com/PublishingImages/About-Your-Water/Hinds%20Pumping%20Plant%201.JPG

jmorpuss
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 17, 2017 1:10 pm

Crispin in Waterloo , wrote:
“Then all we will have to do is ‘geoengineer’ some parts of Australia to bring the water from the wet areas to the dry areas.”
With electricity prices going through the roof, farmers paying for their water here in OZ, and this being the biggest supplier of bass load power and irrigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_Mountains_Scheme The only thing the government needs to keep this running at full speed is rain. This technology WILL be used http://www.australianrain.com.au/assets/files/PDF/UQCombinedQLDreport.pdf to keep the system full, while other areas suffer the consequences. Sydney, the capital of N.S.W gets it’s drinking water from Warragamba Dam, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warragamba_Dam “Cloud seeding in Australia
The history of cloud seeding in Australia pre- and post-2000 is outlined in Attachment 2.” http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/188767/BR9_An-overview-of-cloud-seeding.pdf
Early success
“In 1946 USA researchers I Langmuir and V Schaefer reported that rain could be induced by seeding clouds with dry ice. While many reacted cautiously to these claims Bowen immediately saw the potential importance of the technique for dry Australia. Within months, two members of his staff had investigated Langmuir and Schaefer’s work and, on their return, had carried out a trial in eastern New South Wales using RAAF aircraft. Success was immediate – the date was 5 February 1947.”
https://csiropedia.csiro.au/cloud-seeding/

January 16, 2017 9:11 pm

Very interesting. At one point it is implied the world would be on average at -18 deg C instead of +18 but for global warming – man made, of course. And the oceans are absorbing heat from the atmosphere. And an extraordinary graph shows an alarming increase in the likelihood of hot days, whereas a cursory glance at the historical data for my locality on BoM website shows no change in the last century and a mean temp rise 2 deg give or take, which is close to there being no significant increase due to man-made activities, although it is only commonsense that some of the rise is caused by mankind. In every interglacial period for the last 800,000 years temperature ice cores (mainly EPICA Dome C, but also Vostok for 450,000 years) show that the rise in temp has preceded increases in CO2. That’s eight cycles. Every glacial period starts when CO2 is at a maximum. The climate so called consensus ( a very unscientific principle) has no explanation for this. We are currently only 15k years after the last glacial period. If the earth was not warming now we would be in serious trouble.
Globally incidence of extreme weather has not increased in relatively recent times, the earth is visibly greening, crop yields are increasing. This is what has happened since the 1970s when scientists were warning us of dangerous cooling trends. There has been no global warming for about 20 years depending on how it is measured although CO2 has increased. We need to wait 3-5 years now to see whether, after the 2015/16 El Nino, leaves us with steady, increasing or cooling temperatures. All the IPCC models run hot by significant amounts compared with actual data and there is no empirical data showing either that warming is dangerous or that if we stop all man-made emissions it will make any difference – even the IPCC agrees with that. And yet trillions of dollars are poured into research in order prove these obviously wrong models are actually correct. this is not science. It is a belief in magic. money is available only if your aim is to do this.
I wonder what Australia has done differently from the rest of the world to have this uniquely dangerous postulated climate based on demonstrably incorrect models..

January 16, 2017 9:25 pm

No honest self respecting climate scientist can be specific about Weather except to observe natural cycles and say they will repeat. CO2 Cannot be a forcing Function, but instead is s following function, in concentrations many times what humans contribute. The forcing function cycles big enough to influence Earths climate are on the scale of cosmic disturbances, Solar Disturbances, and Solar system alignments. For an integrated theory on a scale bigger even than ENSO that actually describes observed historic long term cycles, including little and major ice ages, see blog at Paullitely.com, in Particular the blog that begins with “How in the Universe”.

Robber
January 16, 2017 9:39 pm

2 degrees of warming. But aren’t the predictions based on warming since pre-industrial times? So we have already warmed 1 degree – what catastrophes can be attributed to that change? And how much difference will 1 degree make, from an average of 16 to 17 degrees, when we already have parts of the world doing very well with averages of over 20 degrees (like Dallas), and others with averages around 10 degrees (like London).

tony mcleod
January 16, 2017 9:46 pm

You bunch of tools.
I wonder what Australia has done differently from the rest of the world to have this uniquely dangerous postulated climate based on demonstrably incorrect models.
These “predicted” changes have been obvious for years. The rightly saying they on all the evidence available are likely to change further in these directions – different outcomes in different places
Take you about 5 minutes of research to show that NOT ALL OF AUSTRALIA IS GOING TO EXPERIENCE THE SAME EFFECTS. IT IS A LARGE CONTINENT.
Even though that appears to be the single problem that Eric ‘the worlds leading climate scientist’ Worrell has with it.

Menicholas
Reply to  tony mcleod
January 16, 2017 9:55 pm

Bitter much?

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  Menicholas
January 17, 2017 2:25 am

He needs a Bex and a good lie down.
Old Aussies will know what I’m saying !

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  tony mcleod
January 16, 2017 10:12 pm

tony mcleod January 16, 2017 at 9:46 pm
” NOT ALL OF AUSTRALIA IS GOING TO EXPERIENCE THE SAME EFFECTS. IT IS A LARGE CONTINENT.”
The first part is correct tony, the second, no. It is a small Continent. The smallest in fact. Geography play the greatest roll in Australia’s weather. Just as it does in the America Southwest. As well as other areas.
Maybe you should try your luck at selling Vacuum cleaners or encyclopedias.
michael

tony mcleod
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 17, 2017 12:19 am

Yes you’re right again, michael. I was exaggerating. On the league table of continents Australia is a tiddler, a minnow, so tiny its extraordinary they don’t just issue one daily weather forecast for the whole (indescribable minute) continent.
If you actually think I’m trying to sell something you’re mistaken. This kind of thing:comment image?attachauth=ANoY7coDb-113fqoVCYd6xGDaDLUG-1yjziNcQjs5yRvOwsm8PtjELnIz_KpsX4l12XdG8SMuqL2z02crsOg4zB9ftZTNduCiWtz_BOtwosGLcF6L0GjJRrBS71A3QF20-QaOHra02Sirdo0LNX2jqgv26S9cirVfOJ-GLOhbJPak5korwHNhQbpu1FZXcq_fpwNE0nRYG42LCOaWsbItwZT3eHoVSLuB2rlw7aseEQQvVSqS4gxzZaFXb2rcv_uhtokQZCLcwLARk0xUYYUxux_NSAso50IPBfx01D4RUi_ad4LsheyoFU%3D&attredirects=0
doesn’t need selling, shouldn’t even need explaining.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 17, 2017 12:21 am

comment image

tony mcleod
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 17, 2017 12:25 am

Or maybe you’d like to buy some soon to be rare polar sea-icecomment image

AndyG55
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 17, 2017 2:02 am

poor Tony. the topic is Australian rainfall so he throws to Arctic se ice
You are getting more and more desperate and pathetic every day, you poor thing.

AndyG55
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 17, 2017 2:08 am

Arctic sea ice is good, hey.. Shows we are getting slightly back towards the norm for the Holocene.
A RECOVERY from the massive expanses of the Little Ice Age.
1979 was up there with that EXTREME LIA level, did you even know that ???????.
Unfortunately that recovery isn’t going to last. The slight drop in the Arctic is because the wobbly Jet Stream has sucked some of the frigid cold air elsewhere.. like USA, Russia Europe.
And the Antarctic is heading back up towards its norm for this time of year after a brief but quite normal dip.
So you see, with all your desperate RANTING…. YOU HAVE NOTHING !!! 🙂

Jon
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 17, 2017 2:49 am

isn’t Antarctica smaller – in summer without all that extra ice!

tony mcleod
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 17, 2017 3:44 am

That’s all you want to talk about – the bloody Arctic!

AndyG55
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 17, 2017 1:56 pm

mc-clod…. look above, you dopey git… you were the one switched to off topic sea ice.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
January 17, 2017 2:09 pm

He’s quick!

joelobryan
Reply to  tony mcleod
January 16, 2017 10:57 pm

Well at least a tool has a useful purpose.
More than I can say for a Climate Scientist.

Mjw
Reply to  joelobryan
January 16, 2017 11:21 pm

Unless the Climate Scientist is a tool.

Alex
Reply to  tony mcleod
January 17, 2017 12:27 am

[IMG]http://i66.tinypic.com/11183h1.jpg[/IMG]
Can you explain why the RH DROPS with increase in temperature? The absolute humidity doesn’t seem to want to follow your ideas. Humidity does not increase with temperature in the real world.

Alex
Reply to  tony mcleod
January 17, 2017 12:28 am
Alex
Reply to  Alex
January 17, 2017 12:44 am
Macha
Reply to  Alex
January 17, 2017 2:36 pm

RH just means how much More water can be held, Yes?. Best view absolute humidity for correlation with temperature….

Menicholas
January 16, 2017 9:54 pm

“… thinks in the future Australia will experience more rain, less rain or something in between.”
Does he really want to go way out on a limb like that?

AndyG55
January 16, 2017 10:11 pm

Climate models can’t get temperature correct..
They don’t do precipitation, clouds etc well, if at all
WTH makes them think they can “predict” changes in rainfall.
This is LUDICROUS stuff.. extreme propaganda PAP. !!

A one stage they say “The long-term drying of Australia …blah .. blah “..
What a load of RUBBISH !!!!
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2015/20150106_rr_plot.png

Robert B
Reply to  AndyG55
January 17, 2017 3:13 am

The internet is slow at the moment so I can’t find the reference but AR4 does state that the modelling shows that relative humidity * will remain close to the same in a warming world.
“Australians will need to batten down the hatches with more intense rain storms predicted as a result of higher humidity driven by a rise in global temperatures.” So not only do the predictions cover all possibilities, the models predict no change in relative humidity and a large change if the conclusion calls for it (or maybe its the very wet La Nina year)
* the percentage of water vapour in the atmosphere might increase but the percentage of the saturated value (which increases with temperature) shouldn’t. Means that the amount of water, on average, that precipitates when hot and humid air hits cold air will be the same as before.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Robert B
January 17, 2017 8:28 am

It would be a question of whether or not atmospheric processes are driven by relative humidity or absolute humidity. A pound of air at 60°F and 50% relative humidity has fewer grains of moisture (39) than a pound of air at 70°F and 50% relative humidity (55).

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Robert B
January 17, 2017 1:36 pm

D.J. “atmospheric processes are driven by relative humidity or absolute humidity”
Look at the satellite photos of Australia and it’s clear that the Roaring Forties wind and the Ant-Arctic cold drives the Australian weather. Humidity is a local thing and I’m not sure it has much influence at all. Cold fronts are what drive our weather here.

Robert B
Reply to  Robert B
January 17, 2017 6:37 pm

Probably not worth getting into. The colder latitudes are meant to warm up more so cold air meeting with warm humid air will result in less cooling and less rain. Only a back of envelope but it does highlight how big a claim it is that warming means more intense rainfalls rather than what would put a smile on aussie faces – more rain.

Robert B
Reply to  Robert B
January 17, 2017 6:48 pm

I should add that there is a difference in precipitation in going from 40C at 50% RH to 20C 100% humidity than 42 to 22 (roughly a few %) but because colder regions warm up more, its more likely to be less than even that.
http://www.k3jae.com/images/humidity1.png

nn
January 16, 2017 10:13 pm

What did he expect? The Profits have foretold a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (a.k.a. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). Extreme precipitation is consistent with the prophecy.

AndyG55
January 16, 2017 10:20 pm

In this propaganda rag article, http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/01/17/extreme-rainstorms/
…. we see a picture of Uluru, with a comment about abnormal rains..
Any geologist will immediately note that the rain is running in deep channels.. DOH !!

observa
Reply to  AndyG55
January 17, 2017 2:35 pm

Mate if you visit the Olgas (now called Kata Tjuta) you’re looking at walls of previous water eroded round rocks embedded in sandstone and you’re looking across at the far distant horizon to the Peterman Ranges where they originated from. It’s as sobering to realize your own inconsequence as it is looking at the same encased round rocks in the walls of the Bungle Bungles in the NW of Western Australia. And these precious idiots look at 150 years of thermometer records and get the schoolgirl vapours. They need to get out and about a bit more-
https://www.ayersrockresort.com.au/uluru-and-kata-tjuta/natural-environment/geology

observa
Reply to  AndyG55
January 17, 2017 2:42 pm

Mind you-
“The Anangu people know how Uluru and Kata Tjuta were formed. This knowledge comes from the Tjukurpa, the stories and lore that explain and govern Anangu life. But much of it, particularly about Kata Tjuta, is sacred and cannot be presented here.”
Now where have we heard that sort of storyline before?

troe
January 16, 2017 10:22 pm

A load of useless such and such. What idiots are paying for this… oh the taxpayers.

Logoswrench
January 16, 2017 10:29 pm

As if any continents rainfall distribution has been static until humans showed up.

Hivemind
Reply to  Logoswrench
January 17, 2017 3:21 am

It is well known that Australia was perfect until modern (European) humans arrive. Before that, the aborigines were “perfectly in tune with their environment”. Ignore the firestick farming that completely changed the face of the continent. So much so that it appears in the paleological record.
/Sarc

crosspatch
January 16, 2017 10:29 pm

That prediction is a real “no brainer”. Literally so.

Rob Dawg
January 16, 2017 10:37 pm

Climate Change Research Centre
I wonder what a fully entrenched fully funded fully staffed Climate Stability Research Centre would find.

January 16, 2017 10:46 pm

Don;t you just love the humility: “Centre of Excellence”.
I think I’ll award myself a gold medal.

Macha
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 17, 2017 2:42 pm

Hey, me too. And I actually do work in a research department called centre of excellence. But then, I am a modeller too. What a loser I must be.

Chris Hanley
January 16, 2017 10:54 pm

I think it was Professor Sherwood’s magic model that succeeded where twenty-eight million weather balloons over 60 years failed in discovering that elusive troposphere ’hot spot’, an identifying fingerprint of strong positive water vapour feedback in the climate system and hence essential for the catastrophic narrative:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/

gnomish
January 16, 2017 10:54 pm
January 16, 2017 11:10 pm

Geological history proves cycles of ice ages and inter-glacial periods.
Isn’t that very well accepted science? (you could even call it a consensus)
I would like to ask Steve Sherwood how he reconciles his prediction with geological history and, over what period of time will Australia’s rainfall be “increased”?
Will it cancel out the next ice age?
If not, and the earth continues to warm at the current rate of a poofteenth of a degree per year, won’t the humans alive at the time (if any) in the lead up to the ice age, experience a comfortable “cool period” after the hell-fires of predicted warming?

Mjw
January 16, 2017 11:25 pm

So what is it, Each Way Sherwood or Two Bob Steve?

Ore-gonE Left
January 16, 2017 11:31 pm

Hi, I’m Aussie Climate Scientist Steve Sherwood, Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. This essay, all of you have been commenting on, is really a test for Saturday Night Live. It looks like I’ve received plenty of positive response to present this study to NBC. Hope you enjoy the production! /SARC

charles nelson
January 16, 2017 11:34 pm

Dr Tim (Ghost Metropolis) Flannery, will have something to say about this…it’s barely 7 years since he was predicting a city destroying ‘permanent drought’….sound familiar?

Graeme
January 16, 2017 11:46 pm

Tim Blair has come up with a great nickname for Flannery and his woeful predictions: Nostradumbarse.

karabar
Reply to  Graeme
January 17, 2017 12:02 am

Actually it was back in March 2015 that Tim Blair christened the ridiculous Bob Ellis with the name Nostradumbarse. But it’s a perfectly good nom de pume for Old Flannelpants.

Graeme
Reply to  karabar
January 17, 2017 4:30 pm

You’ve got a good archive, Karabar. Do you go back as far as when Tim was writing in The Bullein?

Jer0me
January 16, 2017 11:56 pm

And the null hypothesis is….. ?
*facepalm*

knr
Reply to  Jer0me
January 17, 2017 2:02 am

there is none , try asking them what would ‘disprove ‘ their claims and they cannot or will not ever answer .

Robert from oz
January 17, 2017 12:16 am

I truly weep for my country and as for the wankers who keep coming up with this garbage ,” the end of your gravy train world is nigh” .
Just listening to our local news and they were whining about our unusual 40 degree c plus day , the weather presenter then claimed more people die of heat stress than natural disasters .
I checked and you know what ? More people die from heat stress than winning tattslotto and eating their shoes and choking and walking on railroad tracks and even playing on freeways at peak hour .
I kid you not check it yourself Tony , unfortunately they didn’t mention more people die from cold related injurys than heat related injurys .

PaulE
January 17, 2017 1:28 am

A complete bunch of nongs. They haven’t got a clue. One day we’re going to have a week of rain & 2 days later, after no rain, well the rains been postponed to next week.
But it’s Climate Change, DOH! I meant Global Warming that’s really causing the problem.
Hey, this is Australia, let’s not get too serious, after all we’ve got Labour party or dead duck Liberal governments.
Might as well stooge them all. Let’s squander the kids inheritance on a mirage of windmills and stupid solar panels.

RexAlan
Reply to  PaulE
January 17, 2017 2:07 am

Actually PaulE it’s spelled Labor Party. Sorry to be picky.

chris moffatt
Reply to  RexAlan
January 17, 2017 4:07 pm

What the Australian Labour Party now spells its name “labor Party”? colour me sceptical!

observa
Reply to  PaulE
January 17, 2017 5:13 am

Yes the founders of the ALP couldn’t spell either but you know how ejumacation is nowadays-
http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/i-was-fired-from-my-school-for-correcting-a-students-spelling-mistake/ar-AAlVsbf?

observa
Reply to  PaulE
January 17, 2017 5:18 am

“Might as well stooge them all. Let’s squander the kids inheritance on a mirage of windmills and stupid solar panels.”
Interestingly the non-science crowd might get their comeuppance next summer once Hazelwood closes-
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2017/01/nem-wide-demand-at-34000mw-today/

4TimesAYear
January 17, 2017 1:33 am

There’s a cartoon line for this one: “Eenie meanie chilli-beanie – the spirits are about to speak” *SMH*

knr
January 17, 2017 2:00 am

Classic climate ‘science’ heads you lose tails I win ‘ and if ever wanted to know why these people protect their own areas so much , its party because they never get such a easy job anywhere else and no other area of science would touch them given their rubbish standards. So its all in , because otherwise they have nothing .

Ed zuiderwijk
January 17, 2017 2:10 am

And what if the temperature does not rise by 2 degrees, but drops instead?
Another paper, of course!

Editor
January 17, 2017 2:10 am

Perhaps Sherwood could get a job at the Bank of England!!
Mark Carney – “As a result, the next interest rate move could be either up or down, he said”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38644963?SThisFB

Tim Hammond
January 17, 2017 2:38 am

“A regional climate projection ensemble6 for Australia, which implicitly includes these effects, accurately and robustly reproduces the observed apparent scaling throughout the continent for daily precipitation extremes.”
I think this illustrates the problem. They build a model, tweak it to replicate what has actually happened, then congratulate themselves that they have build an accurate and robust model.
I honestly don’t think they see the problem.

Hivemind
Reply to  Tim Hammond
January 17, 2017 3:26 am

You misunderstand the problem they were solving. The government had money. They wanted it. Once paper later, problem solved.

Dan S
January 17, 2017 4:41 am

My prediction for the coming year is that (fill in the blank) will increase, decrease or be somewhere in between, all on account of climate change. You’re welcome!

Roger Knights
Reply to  Dan S
January 17, 2017 8:03 am

“There is no chance that rainfall in Australia will remain the same as the climate warms,” he said.
“With two degrees of global warming, Australia is stuck with either more aridity, much heavier extreme rains, or some combination of the two.”

What he’s saying isn’t a mere truism. He’s saying that if aridity is avoided, and rainfall occurs at current levels, it’ll be in a less benign way.
(But maybe, OTOH, rainfall patterns in Australia will become more benign; i.e., maybe there’ll be a moderation of its flood/drought pattern. Who knows?)

Berényi Péter
January 17, 2017 4:46 am

The study’s authors predict that while some parts of the continent will become wetter, others will experience increasing drought.

Weather in Australia used to be like clockwork, there were no extremes whatsoever. Not any more.

GregK
January 17, 2017 5:30 am

if it’s normal is it extreme ?
http://www.outbackcrossing.com.au/Information/The_Great_Debate_-The_Hottest_Town_in_Australia.shtml
Perhaps only in comparison to someone else’s normal

Darrell Demick
January 17, 2017 5:49 am

I have said it before and I will say it again:
Simulation is like masturbation – the more you do it, the more you start to believe that it is the real thing.

January 17, 2017 8:05 am

Nice to know the Aussies have their own version of Bill Nye. After saying CA was going into permanent drought, his tune has now changed to a version of ‘approve Paris accord or CA will drown!’.

January 17, 2017 8:31 am

You know, honestly, sometimes I wish I’d taken up meteorology. I don’t envy them at all, but there’s just so much work to do in the field. We make fun of them a lot, but they really are on the cutting edge of science. They fall on their asses a lot, but you know what we say; if you aren’t falling down you aren’t skiing hard enough.
More, less, about the same? That seems to be the best we can do these days. If they weren’t trying to promote themselves as the saviours of humanity, it would be a whole lot easier to welcome them into the ranks of the people who already know they don’t know anything.

Gary Pearse
January 17, 2017 8:49 am

I think the Ark of Excrescence for high Clime Cisterns is about to sail on its final voyage into permanent ice under the command of the admiral of the Ship of Fools. Typical of increasingly hysterical end of world papers being uselessly churned out in journals that also feel the cold breath of change on the back of their necks, they have dispensed with any pretence of error bars. Indeed, these are 100% certainty papers (wet, dry, mixed, warm, cool conditions). With an Ark type model you could predict the color of the First Lady’s inauguration ball gown with 100% certainty.

Svend Ferdinandsen
January 17, 2017 9:11 am

There you see, we indeed have climate change.
Maybe he should stick his neck in the rope and say where what will happen.
We have also climate change in Denmark. The other night it was -10C and now it is 0C. It is even visible from my window.

BallBounces
January 17, 2017 9:24 am

I predict that when the rain does come, it will fall. When it falls, it will fall more lightly or harder. The era of stable, golden-zone, perfectionistic climate is forever gone.

MarkW
January 17, 2017 9:51 am

It’s not total humidity that matters, it’s relative humidity.
If the air is warmer, it will continue to hold onto that extra humidity.

Vlad the Deplorable Impaler
January 17, 2017 9:51 am
buggs
January 17, 2017 10:14 am

Once again, repeat after me: If your hypothesis contains all possible outcomes you have no null hypothesis to start with. If that’s the case, you aren’t doing science. All you’re producing is hot air.

Louis
January 17, 2017 11:03 am

My prediction for the U.S stock market is that some stocks will go up and some stocks will go down, or there will be some combination of the two. These conclusions are likely to generalize to other regions.
With a prediction like that, I expect many climate scientists will want to hire me as their stock broker. Others, not so much. When can I pick up my Nobel Prize for economics? If it’s good enough for climate science…

J Mac
January 17, 2017 11:19 am

“With two degrees of global warming, Australia is stuck with either more aridity, much heavier extreme rains, or some combination of the two.”
WOW! The crystalline precision of climatologist Steve Sherwood’s pin point prediction leaves me breathless! Aussies everywhere can be extremely proud of the HUGE return on investment that Steve Sherwood’s Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales is providing to over burdened Australian taxpayers!!

Reg Nelson
January 17, 2017 1:14 pm

The ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science just received the prestigious Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence

January 17, 2017 1:22 pm

Thermalization of terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 and reverse thermalization, nearly all to the plethora of lower energy absorb/emit bands of water vapor, explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Global average increased rainfall is expected as a result of the steady uptrend of global average atmospheric water vapor for at least the last 38 years as reported by NASA/RSS. The data showing the uptrend is graphed at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

MattS
January 17, 2017 2:36 pm

This is the Same Steve Sherwood who said if you use wind as a proxy for temperature the troposphere is warming after all: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/may/28/upper-troposphere-is-warming-after-all-research-shows
What a clown.

observa
Reply to  MattS
January 17, 2017 2:47 pm

That’s an ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science clown to you sir and not some common or garden Climate System Science clown.

jmorpuss
January 17, 2017 2:50 pm

Has Steve Sherwood finally got the memo ,
What Will Warming Do?
Another issue researchers are trying to better understand is how a warmer atmosphere will impact atmospheric rivers — a key consideration for areas that so depend on these features for water.
Climate models and basic physics suggest that atmospheric rivers will become moister and more intense in the future, as a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor (about 4 percent more for every degree 1°F of warming).
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/global-warming-atmospheric-rivers-18645
Here are some tools that could be used to steer atmospheric rivers .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Communication_Station_Harold_E._Holt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLF_Transmitter_Woodside
And the process.
Transmitter-induced Precipitation of Electron Radiation (TIPER)[edit]
“In order to cause electron precipitation, transmitters must produce very powerful waves with wavelengths from 10 to 100 km.[3] Naval communication arrays often cause transmitter-induced precipitation of electron radiation (TIPER) because powerful waves are needed to communicate through water. These powerful transmitters are operating at almost all times of the day. Occasionally, these waves will have the exact heading and frequency needed to cause an electron to precipitate from the radiation belt.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_precipitation

nankerphelge
January 17, 2017 3:40 pm

As a citizen of the Lucky Country the news just gets better and better. With apologies to Dorothea McKellar:
“I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains”
becomes “I love a slightly sunburnt country, a land with plenty of rains”?

chris moffatt
January 17, 2017 3:56 pm

“With two degrees of global warming, Australia is stuck with either more aridity, much heavier extreme rains, or some combination of the two.”
So if things don’t change they’ll stay the same? This is what passes for “science” these days? And there I thought “settled science” would enable one to make predictions? Oh sorry, he did make a prediction – things will change or they won’t! I could have predicted that with my puny degrees in Computer Science and History. Where do I sign up for the big bucks?
As for global average temperature; how is that more useful than global average telephone number, pray tell?

Tim of Kilsyth
January 17, 2017 4:49 pm

As an Australian Tax Payer I shudder to think I am paying Academics for meaningless alarmist nonsense as this by Sherwood. Australia’s climate has always varied for millions of years and will go on being variable regardless of an extra 100 or 200 ppm of CO2 . In my 60 years of life I have seen numerous droughts, heatwaves, cold spells, floods and as I live in Melbourne you can get all of it in one day!! This will go on and on like this even if we stopped every bit of human carbon burning today.
At present we are not particularly hot for Summer which I am happy about.

Apoxonbothyourhouses
January 17, 2017 9:05 pm

FYI Sherwood was very active in trying to deny Monckton access to venues at which he could present his views to the public.

Reply to  Apoxonbothyourhouses
January 17, 2017 11:16 pm

Apoxonbothyourhouses
“FYI Sherwood was very active in trying to deny Monckton access to venues at which he could present his views to the public.”
Let’s not forget either the appalling and deceitful treatment of Bjorn Lomborg by the University of WA backed by the entire Australian AGW Establishment. Australian climate science is as politicised and corrupt as anywhere in the world. Very glad, though, to see Garth Paltridge, whom I met once many years ago and who explained to me all about Antarctica and the oceans, is now with the GWPF

January 17, 2017 9:48 pm

Sherwood’s “prediction” that “Australia is stuck with either more aridity, much heavier extreme rains, or some combination of the two” is not an example of a “prediction” but rather is an example of an “equivocation.” Unlike a prediction, an equivocation conveys no information.

MACK
January 17, 2017 10:49 pm

Reads as if it has been written by one of those random phrase generators.

Blah
January 18, 2017 4:39 pm

So in other words; Melbourne.

jim heath
January 19, 2017 5:25 pm

But will it fill the dams? are you there Tim? come in Tim.

Johann Wundersamer
January 19, 2017 11:06 pm

“Sherwood’s University of New South Wales is also home to Climate researcher Chris Turney, leader of the infamous 2013 Ship of Fools expedition to the Antarctic.
Sadly the full study is paywalled.”
Guess why.
” But from the abstract and Sherwood’s comments to the press, in my opinion Sherwood’s prediction seems unfalsifiable. Almost any imaginable future rainfall observation would fit a prediction of more aridity, more rainfall, or something in between.”
Astrology always did a good job because professionals know how to take the people.

January 21, 2017 12:29 am

comment image

%d bloggers like this: