Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I kept hearing so much about the Australian bushfires being the result of or driven by “climate change” or “global warming” that I thought I’d take a look at just what’s happened to the rainfall there. Here are a hundred and nineteen years of Australian rainfall.
Here’s the curious part. The earth has been undergoing a mild warming pretty steadily since 1970, about the last half-century.
But although the last couple years have been dry, the last half-century in Australia has been wetter than the previous half-century. Not dryer. Wetter. And a lot wetter.
In fact, anyone under about sixty years old has never experienced dry Australia.
Now, I mentioned this and showed this graph on Twitter, where I post as @weschenbach, and someone said something like “Well, Australia’s a big area to average. Maybe it’s wetter in the middle and less so on the coast.”
That seemed unlikely. I mean the moisture is coming in from the ocean and so the coasts are generally wetter than the outback … plus with overall more rain, the middle would have to be pretty wet.
But I’m a man for data over theory, so I went back to the same source listed above, and I got the rainfall records for New South Wales where the fires are. Here are those results.

And once again, yes, the last few years have surely been dry in NSW … but again, that’s weather. And once again, the recent half-century has been much wetter than the first half of the 20th century. Not dryer. Wetter.
Finally, forest management experts have been warning the Australian government over and over again for years that neglecting forest management and giving up on fire hazard reduction burns was piling up fuel in the bush, and that it was only a matter of time and a dry year before catastrophe struck … here’s a particularly strong warning from 2015, and it is far from the only one.
But nooo … misguided green activists wouldn’t hear of that. They protested the fire hazard reduction burns.

Hilariously, the Australian Broadcasting Commission has deleted their article on the activists’ protest because it doesn’t fit the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!” narrative … bunch’a deceptive left-wing idiots who don’t know that the intarwebs never forget.
And when you add the incredibly high fuel load in the oily flammable eucalyptus forest to the fact that more than a dozen arsonists have been arrested for starting many of the fires, it should come as no surprise to anyone that these fires have been devastating, destructive, fatal, and horrible …
It should come as no surprise because they were warned. Clearly. Repeatedly.
Now, I live in the fire zone in California, and so I have great sympathy and compassion for those who are in the path of the fires in Australia. And our fire problem here is inter alia for the same reason—abysmal forest management practices driven by Green activists with hearts of gold and brains of oatmeal.
But those blaming it on climate change? Look, if the CO2 emissions in Australia went to zero, it might make the earth cooler by about 0.05°C by the year 2050 … call me crazy, but I don’t see Australians giving up on air travel as being a very effective fire-fighting strategy.
My best regards to everyone on a lovely clear night,
w.
Addendum: As is my custom, I politely ask that when you comment, you quote what it is you are discussing, so we can all know who and what your subject might be.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Sorry, Willis, I note now that my comment is not being very specific. But I was actually posing a question. What, in your opinion is the reason for the warming of the earth?
What is the reason for the warming of the earth?
Here’s the ugly truth.
Nobody knows.
In 1600-1700s, the earth was in the grip of the Little Ice Age. Some time in the 1700’s the earth started to warm. This warming has continued, in fits and starts, ever since.
So: why did we enter the Little Ice Age after a previous warm period? Nobody knows.
Why did the LIA start around 1600 and not say 1400 or 1500? Nobody knows.
Why did it start warming after that instead of continuing to cool? Nobody knows.
Why did the LIA end ~1750 and not 1650 or 1850? Nobody knows.
Why has it warmed ever since? Nobody knows.
One thing we do know.
The answer is not “CO2”.
w.
The answer is not “CO2”.
w.
Heh! I am so glad we are agreed on that!! That CO2 story is really the biggest lie ever told!!
Now, I have noticed here at the site of the nuclear power plant in Koeberg, South Africa, that sea life in the ocean has been affected due to the heat produced by the power plant. There are also many manufacturing processes that involve cooling, e.g. just think of the making of aluminium and iron. Even just the anodising of aluminium required enormous amounts of cooling water. So here is my question that I want to throw up in the air here: could it be that all our shipping and all our power plants and manufacturing processes that involve installations whereby cool water is drawn in and then returned as much warmer water into the rivers, seas and oceans, be a / some factor in the warming of our oceans by about 0.7 C degrees over the past 50 years?
That seems unlikely, Henry, just because the ocean is so damn big. Hang on, let me think …
OK, might get to it like this. Here’s how I’d attack the problem, you can look over my shoulder to see my work.
The world produces about 155,000 terawatt-hours of energy per year. Consumption is about 110,000 TWh. The difference is lost as heat.
The difference is about 45K terawatt-hours/year. A joule is a watt-second. So that is 1.6 E +14 megajoules per year.
It takes 4.186 megajoules to heat a tonne of water by 1 degree. The ocean weighs 1.3E+18 tonnes. So it would take 5.4E+18 megajoules to warm the ocean by one degree.
Now, maybe as much as 2% of the total energy loss goes into the rivers. Likely less, most human activities don’t dump energy into the rivers or the ocean. So perhaps 3.2E+12 megajoules goes into the water per year. That’s 1.6E+14 megajoules over 50 years.
Finally, that number has been ramping up steadily over the last 50 years, so we’re looking at somewhat less, call it 1E+14 megajoules over 50 years.
Recall it takes 5.4E+18 joules to warm the ocean by 1°C. So that total might warm the ocean by 0.00002°C over 50 years.
Not a lot … and even if we’re out by a factor of 100, it’s still not a lot.
Here’s another way to look at it.
At the end of the day, most of the energy we consume ends up as heat. We use 155E+15 watt-hours of energy per year. With 8,766 hours per year, that’s a constant flux of about 1.8E13 watts.
Dividing that by the global surface area of 5.11E+14 square metres gives us 0.04 watts per square metre … four hundredths of a W/m2 in a system where the 24/7/365 average downwelling radiation is half a kilowatt per m2.
We like to think we’re big players in the energy game, but we’re not …
w.
Willis, that is amazing! I always thought of mathematicians as magicians…You are indeed a magician! Sorry, I cannot check you up on this, but I do believe you. I did ask this question once before and I remember now getting a very similar answer from somebody else, i.e. the energy produced is next to nothing.
Just one more question. Was the burning of fossil fuels for shipping, motor car driving and flying included in your calculation? I gather that the heat produced during flying, driving and shipping will eventually also all flush back into the rivers, seas and oceans due to the normal atmospheric processes, i.e. clouds, mist, rain, snow, etc.
If your estimation is more or less correct, it only leaves the sun or the earth itself as a source for the extra heat coming into the oceans. Or their interaction.
I think we cannot exclude earth as a source. I mean: who says that the cooling of earth from Genesis is always or has always been on an absolute straight line? Maybe there are some ups and downs on that line? no doubt again related to the magnetic field strength of the sun; something like a magnetic stirrer effect.
What I mean is: incidentally, like the past 50 years, there might be more volcanic action underneath the seabeds due to a slight turning of earth’s inner core, as also witnessed by the shift in the magnetic north pole.