Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t James Sternhell, JoNova; How does a climate scientist “misspeak” an entire answer to a question about important climate claims?
On Wednesday 19 June, 2019, Sydney Environment Institute (SEI) at an event at the University of Sydney, Professor Andy Pitman of University of NSW (home of ship of fools professor Chris Turney) said the following:
“…this may not be what you expect to hear. but as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.
That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.If you look at the Bureau of Meteorology data over the whole of the last one hundred years there’s no trend in data. There is no drying trend. There’s been a trend in the last twenty years, but there’s been no trend in the last hundred years, and that’s an expression on how variable Australian rainfall climate is.
There are in some regions but not in other regions.
So the fundamental problem we have is that we don’t understand what causes droughts.
Much more interesting, We don’t know what stops a drought. We know it’s rain, but we don’t know what lines up to create drought breaking rains.”
Source (starts at around 1:10): https://soundcloud.com/sydneyenvironmentinstitute/adapting-climate-science-for-business
Excerpt recording of Professor Pitman speaking these words: link
Since then, Professor Pitman has apparently walked back his original answer with the following statement
Climate scientist says Sky News commentators misrepresented his views on drought
Graham Readfearn
Fri 25 Oct 2019 04.00 AEDT
Last modified on Fri 25 Oct 2019 04.02 AEDT
Exclusive: Andy Pitman says ‘misspoken’ statement has been used by Alan Jones, Chris Kenny and Andrew Bolt to dismiss links between climate change and droughtA leading Australian climate scientist has said his views have been misrepresented by conservative media commentators, who have used a “misspoken” statement to dismiss the links between climate change and drought.
Prof Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes at the University of New South Wales, has told Guardian Australia there are clear links between human-caused climate change and drought, but these links are indirect.
…
He told Guardian Australia: “I misspoke – I missed a word in my statement and that’s my fault. I should have said no ‘direct’ link.
“I’m confident in the statement that there is no direct link between climate change and drought. I’m equally certain that for some regions there’s an indirect effect of human-induced climate change on drought because of the change in rainfall patterns.”
He said increases in temperatures caused by human activity would also make the impacts of drought worse.
He said: “Background warming does mean that when you get a drought, the system is more stressed than it otherwise would be.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/oct/25/climate-scientist-says-sky-news-commentators-misrepresented-his-views-on-drought
What a mess. What are these “indirect” links between climate change and drought which don’t show up in long term drought trends?
Was Professor Pitman coerced into recanting his climate heresy? Maybe. Naomi Oreskes tells us there is pressure on climate scientists to conform with the public positions of their colleagues.
We have all seen what happens to tenured professors in Australia whose public statements deviate from the climate change narrative promoted by their university; they get fired, and either go quietly, or risk their retirement savings fighting university lawyers backed by apparently unlimited taxpayer funds.
But what if there really is a link between climate change and droughts? Professor Pitman’s original answer included the statement “we don’t understand what causes droughts”. Perhaps there really is evidence of an elusive link between climate change and drought, which somehow does not show up in long term drought trends.
Given the seriousness of droughts, especially in a dry country like Australia, I think we would all like a more detailed explanation from Professor Pitman about exactly what he thinks is the link between anthropogenic CO2 and drought, and why the alleged influence of CO2 on droughts does not show up in long term drought trends – unless he now wants to walk back that part of his original statement as well.
Update (EW): kentlfc hilighted a slide shown by Professor Pitman in his original presentation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There are several items in this single answer to a question that can not be refuted. Some are mentioned twice-how can that be an accident?
How can it be an accident that media misrepresentation is mentioned twice? Accident?
How can it be that he twice mentioned no trend in data over 100 years? Accident?
Then there is the comment that the fundamental problem is they don’t understand what causes droughts. Thus, how can they claim the science is settled???
The BIG question is why did “our” ABC and the Guardian deliberately not have the full response/ transcript up for the full story?
I almost fell off my chair on the night scrambling for my note pad. I could not believe my ears. There was no coercion and the question was not a trick question. Lucky Andy Pitman has a pleasant voice that made it easier to make the transcript.
The moral of the story is this- go to warmist functions-you learn more by going to their functions to hear what makes them tick than being in echo chambers to hear what you already know.
Have a Happy Halloween. We will be out at the Five Dock Climate Realists tonight since there are no warmist functions tonight.
OUR ABC seems to manage to have “transmission issues” or total amnesia and no transcripts for quite a LOT of anything that might be against their gospel/warmist memes Ive noticed.
truly amazing how many VERY interesting guests saying something rather interesting turn to static for as long as that segment runs for.
It was such an important clarification that it took 4 months to rectify and only after the “error” was correctly pointed out by climate sceptics.
Those trying to say Pittman didn’t mean what he actually said forget this picture was shown at the June conference.
Thanks, posted.
Warmer oceans means more water will evaporate. That water vapor will rise up into the atmosphere and travel around on the winds until conditions are right for it to condense. Then it will fall to earth as rain or snow.
So warming will result in more rain not less. We don’t know where that rain will occur but worldwide we will get more rain.
Coerced, definitely coerced.
If it can be scientifically demonstrated that an indirect link can be proven as causal; then that is really a direct link.
No proof that an indirect link is scientifically provable as causal; then there is no link, period.
Pitman’s claims are now far from associations, relationships, correlations or causation.
Pitman’s retraction is just doublespeak and bafflegab. Ergo, he is protecting his butt with nonscientific stuff to fit in the chosen one’s program.
Don’t waste time reading anything else from Pitman; as he won’t push against the consensus again; making his alleged science into nonscience.
Professor Pittman, we heard your confidently spoken words. ” there is no link……”
We saw an awkwardly worded statement that you misspoke and meant to say “there is no direct link……”.
We heard you confidently say. “That may not be what you read in the newspapers and sometimes hear commented, but there is no reason a priori why climate change should made the landscape more arid.”
Does your retraction add the word direct into this statement as well?
Was anything you confidently spoke about true?
You knows what happens to people like Salby and Ridd don’t you?
Enjoy the mess you created for yourself.
There is a very long history of drought in Australia…it is not something new, and it does not seem to be getting worse except to those people with no incentive to look more than a decade into the past
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/
Bookmarked! Thankyou.
hey WOW!! thanks heaps for that gem;-))))
There is no change in draught could mean the temperature has not changed, or it could mean that temperature do not change draught.
It certainly had not changed my draught beer. Nor has it caused more draughts in my home.
Perhaps boats have less draught caused by the rising sea levels (don’t try to use logic on that one).
There are fewer draught horses. That may be caused by climate change. Or not…
Wrong . . .
Drought is causing climate change, its darn obvious,
* no evaporation keeping things cool (latent heat of evap is high but `not` if it doesnt happen )
* less clouds means more sunlight hitting the ground
* dry ground is more insulating stopping heat being absorbed, hence it stays in the atmosphere
* less run off means less mass transfer (aka thermal energy) through the system so it stays in place
No ?
Deforestation for solar, wind and bio fuel crops most certainly affects transpiration and soil temperature so their “cure” for climate change is likely the the cause of it! (Pogo Earth Day redux.)
Nice Ken! I would say “icing on the cake”, but I’m sure that would be mis-nterpreted.
If they found an “indirect link” you damn well they wouldn’t include the word “indirect”! How stupid do they think we all are?
Amazingly enough, the precipitation trend for California since 1895 is zero!
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/4/pcp/all/8/1895-2019?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2019
(Wish I knew how to paste their plot into the comment? When I tried to copy the image location I discovered it points to nowhere, they put the entire PNG file as a URL. WTH?)
You need to host the image on a republish friendly site (by default websites don’t allow images to be displayed on other websites, you need to set special configuration settings on the web server), then post an “img” tag in your comments.
Thanks. Not that I endorse utilizing one web site’s functionality to compensate for a lack of such on another but it appears that I can just copy the image and paste it into twitter or say a meme generator etc to get a URL of it. (I suppose asking wordpress for such functionality or image upload feature would be like asking a Sentinelese tribesman for adaptive cruise control? 🙂
“Naomi Oreskes tells us there is pressure on climate scientists to conform with the public positions of their colleagues.”
So, basically, this article shows that climate scientists are human and are generally more loyal to their paychecks and reputations than the science. That is why they will often base their opinions on what they think is the latest public or political consensus rather than relying solely on the science. Consensus is a self-fulling prophesy built upon the latest fad. And that is why it is not science. Every scientific discovery I can think of was opposed by the scientific consensus of the time. They were against it before they were for it.
We should be putting pressure on the Guardian and the ABC to play and publish the entire comment. Make them play it over a couple of times. It is irrefutable.
It should be game over on a positive link between drought and climate change-talking point null and void.
Media telling the truth- it is very clear that the media misreport climate issues-they plug the hysterical line. Media are not telling the truth. Someone should get Andy to do what he can to correct the errors in reporting. Some people, especially kids are being scared to death by the fairy tales promoted by mainstream media. Surely he owes it to the public and the scientific community to address the misreporting and thus misrepresentation of science. As it is, if there is ONE point that needs to get through to people – mainstream media are owned- they spread propaganda and lies. Like Pravda in the Soviet Union, they have no credibility.
The admission that the fundamental problem is that they don’t understand what causes droughts- but, but, the science is settled. As Pauline Hanson would say, please explain. This should be triggering the BS meter. Here is a fundamental lie about the settled science- it is the lame excuse to avoid debate and scrutiny. Busted. Like science in general, it takes just ONE significant error in the data, methodology or modelling of a theory to debunk it. The settled science assertion has been busted, so the cAGW/”climate change”/ climate crisis/ climate emergency rhetoric has been demonstrated to be flawed.
Perhaps this can be Climategate 2. Very fitting that the 10th anniversary of Climategate is around November 17th. Now, how do we celebrate? I am working on a song/ video to “Monster Mash”- the Climate Crock. It will be a hoot. Need a couple of female chorus singers in Sydney to help out with making a clip for YouTube. Don’t need any elaborate costumes, but some corny props will help, especially some hockey sticks.
They did the Crock
They did the Climate Crock
They did the crock
It relied on shock
They did the crock
They did the Climate Crock.
Happy Halloween.
Just as climate science has gotten the CO2 – temperature correlation backward, with temperature driving CO2 rather than the other way around, could they have gotten the temperature/drought relationship backward as well? If there is a correlation between temperature and drought, perhaps the drought is causing the higher temperatures rather than the temperature causing the drought. Drought means less moisture in the ground and less evaporative cooling at the surface. It also generally means clearer skies and more cloud-free days, allowing for greater solar heating of the surface. If you don’t know what causes droughts to end, then it’s a little presumptuous to say you know what causes them to start.
Heat is the driving force of the water cycle. The warmest places on Earth are equatorial, and they are also the wettest (and the most suited for life).
There is a link between average temperatures and rainfall. The warmest parts of Australia (Northern WA, NT, Queensland) are also the areas with the most rain. If you want more rain, we want a warmer planet.
You can look to this guy for drought expertise.
https://twitter.com/petergleick
He has a lot to say.
But I think he was mighty bummed out when the California drought vanished.
He was so hoping it wasn’t the new normal.
So called climate change (which from now on I will shorten to SCCC) has not increased drought.
Why all the confusion Pitman?
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata20141/figures/5
The warmists can’t even get their lies straight.
I recall meeting a retired farmer years ago during a prolonged drought in southern Australia. We were at lake Hume near Albury. The lake was at around 10% capacity and looked pretty terrible. He told me even at 10% there is many years worth of water still there and then came the cruncher. “Nothing to worry about young fella, it always rains at the end of a drought” I will never forget that
” there is no link between climate change and drought.”
Nonsense on the face of it. There may be no correlation between TEMPERATURE CHANGE and drought, but desert areas, savannas, jungles exist in different climates by definition!
It looks like a warmer North Africa would lead to monsoon seasons, converting the Sahara Desert into the Sahara Savanna, with cooler days, less cold nights, and overall net warming.
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-sahara-swung-lush-conditions-years.html
I don’t want to scare you guys, but I must warn you. I think most of you do not yet have a clue about what is coming to you/ us in the next decade.. I am expecting major droughts on the 40-50 latitudes.
I noticed a recent program of the melting of Italian alps. Obviously, during a drought there are more sun hours….In Spain and Portugal it already is so dry that many wine farmers have decided to move up the mountains.
My article was recently published here;
https://www.climategate.nl/2019/10/84861/
If the Dutch is a problem for you, you can click on my name to read the South African version.
Let me know what you think?
In general, evaporation rates are higher from oceans and lakes than from land, for the obvious reason that oceans and lakes are wetter. But rainfall doesn’t discriminate: it falls on land or water without preference. So an accelerated water cycle (evaporation / rain) tends to “spread around” the Earth’s water, transporting it from oceans to land.
Conversely, if there were no water cycle, then in short order the rivers would run out of water, and all the Earth’s water would end up in the low spots (mostly oceans).
Thus, if global warming causes a slightly accelerated water cycle, as expected, then, overall, we should expect slightly reduced global drought frequency, severity & duration.
That’s exactly what we’re seeing:
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html#droughts
Perhaps nowhere on earth needs that improvement more than the arid Sahel, on the fringe of the Sahara Desert. Thankfully, at in the Sahel, the climate improvement is better than just “slightly.” Of course the trend goes in fits and starts, and not every year is better than the year before. But, overall, it is very encouraging:
● New Scientist: Africans go back to the land as plants reclaim the desert, 21 September 2002.
● National Geographic News: Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change? July 31, 2009.
That doesn’t mean nowhere on a warming earth will see worse droughts. But, overall, droughts should not be expected to worsen in a warming climate.
Moreover, the impacts of droughts are greatly mitigated by higher CO2 levels. That’s the major way that manmade climate change affects droughts: not by the small reduction in severity/frequency/duration, but by the large reduction in the harms they do.
That’s a very, very big deal, because it means that droughts are now much less likely to cause famines. Drought-triggered famines, which are now fading from memory, used to be one of the great scourges of the mankind, the “third horseman of the apocalypse.”
The benefits of elevated CO2 levels for crops are under drought stress are large, and well-measured:
● Chun, et al, 2010. Effect of elevated carbon dioxide and water stress on gas exchange and water use efficiency in corn. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 15 March 2011, pp. 378-384. doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2010.11.015
● Fitzgerald, et al, 2016. Elevated atmospheric [CO2] can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves. Glob Chang Biol, June 2016, pp. 2269-2284. doi:10.1111/gcb.13263.
● and many others.
Climate alarmists who cite harms from droughts as a supposed consequence of manmade climate change are either colossally ignorant, or colossally dishonest. It’s the exact opposite of the truth.
Ja.ja. But the major US droughts thar r comibg have not yet started?
Click on my name to get the details of the timetable…