Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Australia to see worse drought thanks to intensifying El Niño

Compiled in collaboration with Australian Science Media Centre. New research by the Bureau of Meteorology - published shows…

Intensifying El El Nino thanks to climate change will see lower rainfall over Australia. Flickr/AndyRobertsPhotos

Compiled in collaboration with Australian Science Media Centre.

New research by the Bureau of Meteorology - published shows El Niño will intensify between 2050 and 2100 thanks to climate change.

El Niño is a complex interaction between air and sea in the tropical Pacific which controls many of our weather patterns. The findings show that eastern Australia will see worse droughts, while the central and eastern Pacific will see increased rainfall.

During an El Niño - properly known as El Niño-Southern Oscillation or ENSO - parts of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean warm more than usual, while the seas off eastern Australia cool. As warm water produces more moisture, the eastern and central Pacific see increased rainfall, while Australia experiences lower-than-average rainfall or drought.

Australia last saw a weak El Niño event over 2009-2010. The previous strong El Niño was 1997-1998.

El Niño’s partner in crime - La Niña - is known for causing opposite effects. The summer of 2010-2011 was one of the strongest La Niña events on record, reflected in rainfall records across eastern Australia, and floods and cyclones in Queensland.

The researchers used four different climate models and found strong agreement between them for decreasing rainfall in eastern Australia.

Currently the Bureau of Meteorology is forecasting neutral El Niño conditions for the remainder of spring and summer.

Dr Scott Power from the Bureau, lead researcher on the paper, told the Australian Science Media Centre that continued global warming has the power to disrupt El Niño and its impacts.

“Until now, there has been great uncertainty about the way in which ENSO [El Niño] might actually change in response to global warming – despite scientists investigating the issue for more than two decades.

“Using the world’s latest generation of climate models we discovered a consistent projection for the future of ENSO. Consistency across models increases confidence in the projections they display.

“Projections produced by the models indicate that global warming interferes with the impact that El Niño sea-surface temperature patterns have on rainfall. This interference causes an intensification of El Niño-driven drying in the western Pacific and rainfall increases in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific.

“The future of ENSO and the disruption it causes to the climate of the earth, its people and its ecosystems are clearer now than ever before.”

Dr Wenju Chai from CSIRO, who did not contribute to the research, said that the paper is significant in that there is a stronger agreement between different climate models in predicting the future impact of El Niño.

“Up until now, there has been a lack of agreement among computer models as to how ENSO will change in the future.”

“During El Niño, Western Pacific countries (Australasia, including Australia) experience unusually low rainfall, while the eastern equatorial Pacific receives more rainfall than usual. This study finds that both the wet and dry anomalies will be greater in future El Niño years. This means that ENSO-induced drought and floods will be more intense in the future.”

Join the conversation

149 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

    Would be nice if the 10 day weather forecasts could be as reliable as these long term climate forecasts.

    report
    1. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Thanks for bringing that up Mike ... I reckon a lot of us are confused by the caution excercised by scientists in saying "That is a climate change event'.....a bit like the boiling frog scenario isn't it? ... we just sit in the pot watching weather happen and waiting for the climate to change.

      When does weather become climate?... no one can tell me.

      It has the feel of one of those familiar economics problems - waiting till something is confirmed by history - like a global financial crisis finally suggesting that something's not quite right... driving with our eyes fixed on the rear view mirror.

      My understanding of the science is that we will see more extremes in our weather - a more energised set of events ... stronger winds, more rain, less rain, broken records ... weather on steroids.

      But if are waiting for the climate to change definitively we'll all be cooked.

      report
    2. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Greetings Michael. Quote:"Climate isn't weather." Correction needed: March 4, 2013-"A few years ago, talking about weather and climate change in the same breath was a cardinal sin for scientists. Now it has become impossible to have a conversation about the weather without discussing wider climate trends, according to researchers who prepared the Australian Climate Commission's latest report. It might even be the case that the mantra chanted after every catastrophic weather event - that it can't be said to be caused by climate change, but it shows what climate change will do - has become a thing of the past, said Will Steffen, the report's lead author and director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute. http://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-a-key-factor-in-extreme-weather-experts-say-20130303-2fefv.html

      report
    3. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Thanks, As a scientist with training in climate I am aware of the difference. It was a gentle if somewhat sarcastic reminder that there are significant issues with the climate models that have been covered here previously. The sort of model outputs being described IMHO are presently not reliable enough for policy and fall in to the category of providing stimulus for academic debate. Hoping they improve with more work over the next decade or so.

      A good example of the disparity between different…

      Read more
    4. Jack Arnold

      Polymath

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Now, now Peter, Tony Abbott has declared that climate change is an urban myth and that the present hot conditions cannot be caused by the increasing use of petroleum fuels creating more CO2, while huge tracts of equatorial forest are clear felled and burned for grazing.

      I think you are being unreasonable comparing TA's climate change denial to cooking frogs slowly ... it is unfair on the stupid frogs (and stupid people who believe TA).

      report
    5. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      RE "As a scientist with training in climate I am aware of the difference [between weather & climate]. It was a gentle if somewhat sarcastic reminder that there are significant issues with the climate models ..."

      Marc, no one needs a reminder, let alone a sarcastic one. There's isn't one climate scientist out of the 27,000+ who is not aware of "significant issues" and uncertainty of climate models. That does NOT make those existing and past models useless. The conclusions and projections drawn…

      Read more
    6. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Exactly - and just how 'changed' doe sit have to be before we declare it 'changed'? What is the 'correct' extent or duration of that change before we declare it to be official change?

      report
    7. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Many thanks Sean, some lovely stuff in there ...

      Yeasts probably don't have folks like the appalling Idso family providing them with messages of reassurance and comfort all subsidised by Peabody Coal. An absolutely appalling bunch of charlatans.

      I've been watching and reading a fair bit of George Lakoff of late ... a cognitive linguist (!!!?) and have via him come across some of the material covered in the paper on the irrational in public discourse and belief systems. He's well worth a look…

      Read more
    8. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      I didn't say the models were useless I said the following "model outputs being described IMHO are presently not reliable enough for policy and fall in to the category of providing stimulus for academic debate."

      PS Geology was the first of the sciences to begin to provide a global understand of climate change. If you want climate context you need to know something about the earth's history.

      report
    9. Grant Burfield

      Dr

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      "Weather forecasters have a saying: climate is what you expect.." Well the IPCC aren't expecting much in the way of droughts up to 2100. Under "Projected likelihood of 21st century change in scenarios considered" -

      "Long-term droughts – Low confidence in projections of changes in the frequency and duration of megadroughts"

      I have become a little hesitant about commenting at TC after Dr Holmes's in-depth exposé of IPA controlled troll-like astroturfiness. However since it's from the IPCC WG1 Draft Report, I'd thought I'd try to sneak it under his AN/TPQ-53 counterfire troll acquisition radar.

      report
    10. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc Hendrickx says "The sort of model outputs being described IMHO are presently not reliable enough for policy and fall in to the category of providing stimulus for academic debate. Hoping they improve with more work over the next decade or so.'

      I find this comment incredibly evil and misleading.

      Marc knows perfectly well that IF the current IPCC predictions are correct then it is far too late to wait until the "next decade or so" to act.

      If Marc wants to prove he is engaging in debate and isn't just a troll then he must provide reasonable justification for doing nothing now just on the fairly remote chance that the climate change models are very wrong (and very wrong in the nothing to worry about direction and not the things are going to be much worse than predicted way).

      When someone as educated and informed as Marc posts such drivel I believe he is committing a crime against humanity and if it was up to me he would be jailed for his crime.

      report
    11. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      As you said before John, I don't know what you think. Pretty amazing considering that you have 1,766 posts on this website.

      My position is that it is sensible to assume that well over 95% of climate scientists know something about their subject, and thus it makes economic and moral sense to act quickly and severely to lower emissions.

      As the science is rational, and my response is rational, I fail to see how you can call this 'religious zealotry'.

      Perhaps it is time for you to tell us all…

      Read more
    12. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Michael, you've posted 1576 entries on this site, so what is your point?
      The point I have tried to make to you on MANY occasions is that whatever we do here to mitigate CO2 emission (and this is accepting that everything you say you believe about global warming is correct) we will have no effect on warming. Unless you can quantify that difference, you have not got an argument.
      Michael, the only thing the planet can do is to limit population growth because at some point in the future, entirely regardless of what mitigation steps are put in place, we will exceed the carrying capacity of the planet.

      report
    13. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Unlike you, I hope that my position is clear in most of my posts.

      You know perfectly well that Australia is a fairly major player in CO2 emissions. Per head we are one of the worlds worst, and though the very large countries such as the USA, China and India are of key importance, Australia is a key second rung country,

      So it is not true that what Australia does has no significance.

      We have had the discussion about population growth before. Yes - it is an important issue. But within the time frame of when we need to act on climate change it is pretty irrelevant.

      report
    14. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Michael, I guess that's really where we disagree. You claim we are a major emitter but the facts don't bear that out. As China and India's emissions continue to skyrocket, ours (as a proportion of global emissions) decrease even further. Gerard Dean's constant banging on about A1 Jet fuel actually has some merit - commercial air travel produces more CO2 than Australia (about 2.5% to our 1.1%). As individuals, we all have a to live well, with the best interests of the planet in mind. That means taking…

      Read more
    15. Grant Burfield

      Dr

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Mr Wilbur-Ham, the latest tranche of filthy lucre from the IPA has been deposited in my account and so I feel obliged to comment. Firstly, both you and Dr Holmes have outed me and the vast majority of denying scientifically illiterate deniers as IPA operatives so I can deny it no longer and do little more than stick my hand up and confess my denial.

      No seriously.

      Secondly, your proposal to gaol denying scientific deniers who deny the undeniable science has merit. Professor Hamilton has articulated similar thoughts. Hopefully you will agitate to make it official Green's policy. Cometh the day, cometh the man.

      report
    16. Grant Burfield

      Dr

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Higgins: I think he's got it. I think he's got it.
      Dr O'Neill: A null hypothesis can be a statement of no change
      Higgins: By George, he's got it. By George, he's got it.

      Exactly what I have been saying all along Dr O'Neill. If you want to test whether there has been a statistically significant decrease or increase in temperature over a time period, the null hypothesis is, as your link says, "zero or no change". Then if the analysis shows that the upper and lower confidence levels contain the null (zero or no change) then one cannot say that there has been a statistically significant decrease (or increase) in temperature. Irrespective of the magnitude of the slope of the trend line. This period turns out to be 17 years or greater depending on the measurement set.

      Well done Dr O'Neill. Carry on.

      report
    17. Jack Arnold

      Polymath

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Hello, Grumpy John is defending his crown for illogical argument. This is a nice change. Usually he is parroting Liars Party propaganda. keep up the good work, John.

      report
    18. John Nicol

      logged in via email @bigpond.com

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Michael Pulsford

      The OAGCM's are largely modifications of the "weather" models - the atmosphere is the atmosphere is the atmosphere.

      What is more, changes in the climate are the result of a sequence of changes in the weather. If carbon dioxide increases cause the climate to change, we won't suddenly wake up on 1st January, 2050, to find the global temperature has suddenly increased by 5 degrees. It will happen slowly and consistently with some warming and cooling cycles superimposed, - all…

      Read more
    19. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Excellent denunciation of the repeated failures of the BoM emeritus professor Nichol.

      But of course to anyone with a lick of sense the obvious reason lies in the BoM's slavish endorsement of the Napoleonic system of metrifying the globe.

      Back when our rain fell in god's gallons, inherently rational inches and feet , when temperature was calibrated in friendly fahrenheit, we didn't see this constant parade of calamity did we? Floods one could set one's clock by.

      Back in the day we had…

      Read more
    20. John Nicol

      logged in via email @bigpond.com

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc Hendricks

      Marc,

      Further to that clear demonstration of the best weather forecasting available, being able to make predictions with at least 45 to 50%, accuracy, I think, in spite of your sarcasm, that things will improve from now on.

      In its latest report, the IPCC has said in effect, that over the past six years it has been trying to test the models experimentally against real climates, as the authors suggested it should and would (See Section 8.1.2.1 and 8.1.2.2 in AR4 2007 - "We are…

      Read more
    21. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      John, the dilemma is that you could pretty much make the same argument for any country in the world - it's all proportional: nobody can do more than their fair share, but nobody should do less. All people like Michael and I are asking is that Australia, as one of the world's richest countries with the highest per capita emissions of any developed nation and the skills and capacity to act decisively should simply do our fair share.

      It may not work, but I'd prefer to have a go rather than collapse…

      Read more
    22. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Hi Marc, I know you didn't use the word 'useless' for I myself used it for my own purposes of making myself clear about the topic. It had nothing to do with you. I don't think you, your ideas, knowledge experience are useless either. OK?

      RE your IMHO quoted, you and I disagree. IMHO they are reliable enough to "inform" a better quality of policy actions right here and right now. But whatever you and I opine about that is irrelevant as neither of us has the personal power to affect policy decisions…

      Read more
    23. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      MWH, I am NOT saying this applies to Marc, but some food for thought on how to keep the emotions in check and not get too histrionic. https://theconversation.com/astroturfing-the-climate-wars-five-ways-to-spot-a-troll-19011
      Something to keep in mind: It's never easy to convince another person to see reason who believe otherwise to begin with. It's almost impossible to convince a person to change their own beliefs or behaviour when their livelihood and future earning potential depends on the status quo continuing.

      BTW is actually used the phrase "committing a crime against humanity" in relation to CSG mining in an email to a politician last week, but she has been fighting against CSG in our area for some time. Using it in an email/letter to the Premier of NSW would have been counter-productive, so I didn't include the phrase when addressing my concerns to him. <smile> Sean

      report
    24. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      John, RE " we will have no effect on warming." The best science available says otherwise. Since day one of the IPCC the story has been that even if all GHG emission and other negative practices were stopped immediately there was enough extra heat in the system that global temperatures would continue to rise anyway. The best science has always suggested that ATTEMPTING to keep that rise below 2 degrees C was a rational risk minimisation strategy IF the Will was found to apply ourselves to that…

      Read more
    25. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Felix, in principle, I agere with what you've said. I know I've been shouted down before for this, but I really want to see some quantification of the effects of any action we take. This isn't because I am a denier, it's because to take action, you have to convince people to want to take action and to do that you need to be able to show them what the outcome of that action will be in specific, real terms (longwinded - sorry).
      Cheers

      report
    26. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      A null hypothesis can be a statement of no change.

      "Exactly what I have been saying all along"

      i.e. no change from 0.17 deg C/decade or whatever of warming.

      It took you a while (you're a slow learner etc.) but thanks for finally getting the point.

      report
    27. Grant Burfield

      Dr

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Oh dear, Dr O’Neill, just when we thought you had finally latched on to hypothesis testing you go and let everyone down. Let’s try the Skeptical Science trend calculator again shall we?
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
      For RSS 1994-2013 with default autocorrelation gives trend and 2σ values of 0.063 ± 0.171 °C/decade
      As Skeptical Science advises us –“If the trend differs from some ‘null hypothesis’ by more than 2σ, then we say that the trend is statistically significant.”
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/temperature_trend_calculator.html
      So as you can see Dr O’Neill, the trend differs from the null hypothesis (no change as you correctly said above - therefore zero) trend by 0.063. This is less (not more) than the 2σ value (0.171) and so we CANNOT say that the trend is statistically significant. Try it yourself and get back to me with the results. I’ve always been noted for my patience with struggling students so I know we’ll get there together in the end.

      report
    28. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      MarcH a PS re you said: "As a scientist with training in climate..." OK, so do you understand the following from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-2/#comment-417475

      "So if X(A+b) – Y(A+c) = d(A+e), then (X-Y)*A = d*A, thus X-Y = d, which by itself doesn’t allow us to solve for X and Y. We could also look at X*b – Y*c = d*e; now for that to be true, e has to be a linear combination of b and c (a linear superposition of the functions…

      Read more
    29. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      "the null hypothesis (no change as you correctly said above - therefore zero) "

      This is where you put on the denialist playing dumb act.

      Where, pray tell, does it say, that the change in rate of warming has to be from zero?

      report
    30. Grant Burfield

      Dr

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Dr O'Neill - "Where, pray tell, does it say, that the change in rate of warming has to be from zero?" It doesn't say "from zero". The null hypothesis is that it IS zero. We then test the data against the null hypothesis. It may be increasing or decreasing but to test the statistical significance of the increase or decrease we need to consider the 2σ confidence intervals and whether the null falls inside or outside these confidence intervals. My result for RSS 1994-2013 with default autocorrelation…

      Read more
    31. Henry Verberne

      Once in the fossil fuel industry but now free to speak up

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Are you a scientist or a trained cherry picker or maybe a nit picker?

      report
  2. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

    Link to article appears broken

    report
    1. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc I actually use the BoM's 10 day forecasts quite a bit particularly when it comes to planning my use of water. And sadly I find them all too bloody accurate of late.

      The BoM's best guesses certainly seem more sensible than my previous method for bringing on rain which involved pumping as much water as I could around the place, only to find a deluge arrives two days later.

      Have you come across any farmers or graziers railing against the BoM's forecasting ...other than their stubborn refusal to predict rain?

      We tend to take this stuff very seriously - a professional interest - and if you do have some evidence to support your view that the BoM's short-term forecasts are failing I'd be extremely interested, professionally speaking.

      report
    2. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      I have not found the 10 day forecasts that reliable. The 3 day much better as you suggest.
      I take it seriously also.

      Of interest in regard to failing forecasts is Warwick Hughes blog. Yes I know its not peer reviewed and does not have the imprint of government research scientists but it does raise some interesting issues and questions and does a nice job of taking BOM forecasts to task. But only if you are open minded.

      http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/

      report
    3. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Ah ... sadly my software won't let me connect to that warwick hughes site ... says it has detected a trojan and shuts it down pronto.

      I'd be assuming he has some stats to back up any criticisms of the BoM's accuracy and makes some recommendations about how this can be improved.

      Be most interested if he takes a scientific rather than sciencey approach... the facts ma'am ... nuttin but the facts. So if you can find one. a clean link would be muchly appreciated.

      report
    4. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Don't be scared to look Peter, you might learn something. Rich with all the stats you ask for.

      report
    5. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Never too scared to look ... but to do so would require me shutting down my anti-virus software and turning off a couple of extra filters I use... and that I AM scared to do having lost several computers and operating systems to exactly such ill-advised adventures exploring the darker corners of the interweb.

      Surely if this fella has done the sums, he'll be available somewhere safe and public... or is he only a legend on his own blog like so many others?

      Undaunted, I'll have a hunt about for him elsewhere and see what I can find. I'll get back to you.

      report
    6. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Been looking about for Warwick Hughes' criticisms of BoM's forecasting methodology ...

      Doesn't do much does he - only four articles ever in print? He actually appears not to have published anything since the early 1990s... which is a bit of a reach given that the BoM's methodology has changed utterly since those steam powered days. Mostly he seemed concerned then about the effects of Stevenson screens - those cute little beehive arrangements in which weather watchers stick their gadgets…

      Read more
    7. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      You seem to rely heavily on cow manure.

      report
    8. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Yeah I do a bit ... useful stuff ... far more use than the sort of thing you're suggesting I adopt by all accounts.

      Can you really not find me a single piece of serious analysis this fella has done anywhere than on some ratbag blog? Is this what you think science is... Marc? That the ravings of some old crank outweighs the BoM? And you'll accept that because - well he's telling you what you want to hear ... so bugger peer review, bugger scrutiny?

      This is deeply disturbing Marc - I wonder what youy will be teaching our kids in future ... comics? ... don't worry about the reading list - just make it up?

      Now if you can actually find me some serious science critical of the BoM's forecasting methodology or its accuracy then I'd be most pleased to read it ... but no not cranks or ratbags - science.

      report
    9. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Pete,
      It's quite clear that anything would not be good enough as it is quite clear you have made up your mind on the issue. Best of luck with the cows, I guess they don't speak back, or do they?
      It's a worry!

      report
    10. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      The do speak back ... they're noisy surly complaining critters - not mine - I hate them. But their deposits work a treat on my strawberries.

      It's a pity that you are unable to give me any science ... I'm quite happy with science and would have thought anyone doing a statistical evaluation of the BoM's forecasting strike rates would be able to get them published anywhere.

      But you've just cited a crank - posting on his own blog - who has had only four bits of totally unrelated material publioshed 20 years ago. That is very disappointing and - as I suggested - very disturbing given your connection with one of my old alma maters.

      Seems they're turning out PhDs who don't know the difference between science and ratbaggery. Stick to science Marc - it's a pretty useful tool really - beats the daylights out of these ratbag refusenik blogs.

      report
    11. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Peter,
      Quick question to put to the cows...Where do think most research is done?

      report
    12. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      In sheds ... out in the top paddock ... by cranks with cyclotrons made from discarded dysons.

      In dark spare rooms by lonely men scrambling through the interweb searching for useful ideas on ratbag blogs....

      Where is the Nobel Prize for DIY Sciencey Stuff? Curse these scientists and their secret conspiracies.

      Deeply unhinged Marc. And unlikely to be a geologist or anything else requiring a basic understanding of science. And doesn't know nuffin about cows either.

      report
  3. John Newlands

    tree changer

    ABC Rural suggest that 2014 could be an El Nino year. In July 2014 the plan is to repeal the carbon tax legislation. Back in 2007 a hot year if I recall the government was elected on two big promises, Work Choices and CPRS suggesting the public has climate concerns in hot years. If the 'direct action' alternative to carbon tax does not seem feasible then the carbon tax repeal may get a hostile reception.

    report
    1. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to John Newlands

      Surveys have shown that public acceptance of global warming varies with the weather.

      report
  4. David Michael

    Manager

    Important to recognize also that not all drought events are El Niño driven or related even though there is a relationship between drought and El Niño. e.g. 2002-07 drought is recognized as one of the most severe on record with Murray Darling inflows the lowest on record. Southern Oscillation index was negative in 47 out of 60 months over this time. In the severe1982-83 drought the index was negative in 16 out of 24 months.

    report
  5. Greg North

    Retired Engineer

    Even more than two decades, if nearly three is more than a relatively short period I would have thought to be too confident of much at all other than Australia is a land of droughts and flooding rains.
    I wonder whether research could have looked more closely at what our droughts history was for the full twentieth century if not for a longer period and then to have seen how that corellated with what rainfall records there were across the central/eastern pacific.
    The other thing that ought to have…

    Read more
    1. Davd Mitchell

      Hydrologist

      In reply to Greg North

      The South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative http://www.seaci.org/ has been researching those very areas
      the web site has a comprehensive report on the drivers of rainfall, and stream flow for South eastern Australia

      report
  6. Mark McGuire

    climate consensus rebel

    New research? Hope it is better than the "old" research: February 17, 2009- "David Jones, the head of the bureau's National Climate Centre, said there was some risk of a worsening El Nino event this year, but it was more likely to arrive in 2010 or 2011." http://www.theage.com.au/national/drought-and-fire-here-to-stay-with-el-ninos-return-20090216-899u.html#ixzz1nrZUq1ik .As noted above,"The summer of 2010-2011 was one of the strongest La Niña events on record ...". Of course, one thing the BoM didn't…

    Read more
    1. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      You mean, with more research comes better understanding? Well, how about that.

      So does this mean decision-makers should hold off, wait for more research results? Well, no; we've known for over a decade that recycling geosequestered carbon to the climate system through fossil fuel use has already initiated perturbation of the climate to well outside Holocene/Pleistocene range.

      We now know that we've initiated perturbations to the limit of Pliocene range, and if we stick with the economists' target we'll overshoot the top of the Miocene range.

      report
    2. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Hi David. When a statement/claim is made like "The Science is Settled", there is little room for doubt about what is meant. If you look at the Nature paper quoted at top, research is based on 2007 model(13) and a 2012 model(14), both "using four different scenarios for CO2 and other radiatively active gases"(14,15,16.17). This is NOT new research. Doing/using the same methods will naturally arrive at the same conclusion. Which was wrong the first time. Q. What caused those "perturbations" in the Pliocene & Miocene times? Did the economists predict those targets?

      report
    3. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      "Which was wrong the first time". Err, no.

      For a start, you are using singular grammar, whereas Power et al's work was on the results of several models, so you should be using plural.

      Secondly, the different models agree with each other about the future, ie the results they give are "robust".

      Thirdly, each of the models have been verified by their ability to predict past observations ie start them running in, say, 1980, and see if their predictions for 1980-2010 match what's been experienced…

      Read more
    4. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      No. Neither is Tim Flannery, or Al Gore, Tony Abbott, Lord Stern or Ross Garnaut. Are you?

      report
    5. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      I do not go around making claims to knowledge I do not or could not possibly know

      I don't care about Gore or Flannery or anyone else you in your strawman fan club - like, you no who else isn't a climate scientist? elmo, listing people who aren't climate scientists does give you anymore credentials

      I try to retain the humble position that maybe, just maybe the people who study this for a living might know more about the subject than I do

      report
    6. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      "February 17, 2009- "David Jones, the head of the bureau's National Climate Centre, said there was some risk of a worsening El Nino event this year, but it was more likely to arrive in 2010 or 2011."

      The El Nino was from May 2009 to March 2010 http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/enlist/

      Doesn't an El Nino developing in 2009 come under "some risk of a worsening El Nino event this year"?

      report
    7. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Greetings David. Thanks for the grammatical corrections, but I digress. Was the BoM incorrect in that 2009 prediction? Pardon me if I don't have the same 95% confidence as you in their second attempt using the same science/models. Paleoclimate history: Like you, I know those two links you provide show that humans were not responsible for "perturbations." 450ppm? Ask Bill McKibben about the dangers of 350ppm! Or 380ppm. Or 400ppm http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/ . Need a hand moving those goal…

      Read more
    8. Alice Kelly
      Alice Kelly is a Friend of The Conversation.

      sole parent

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      "What caused those pertubations in the Pliocene & Miocene times", is definitely a strawman attempt by an increasingly desperate climate change denier to find anything else, but large volumes of CO2 which is causing our present day climate change. As has happened if a total overview of the Cenozoic (65 million years) is looked at. It's just that the changes presently occurring are more rapid, and CO2 is the primary cause. Read the conclusions in this paper please.
      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.4846.pdf

      Read more
    9. Dianna Arthur

      Environmentalist

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Alice

      Am expecting deniers to argue that recent extreme weather events are a deliberate plot by climate scientists to prove AGW, or, merely a coincidence.

      What these deniers will not do is provide any peer reviewed science. Just links to spurious organisations whose money trail leads to such as the Heartland institute or supposedly informed individuals whose money trail inevitably leads to anything other than actual bona fide scientific organisations.

      Also if deniers know so much why are they arguing here and not presenting a body of proven work directly with NASA, BoM, CSIRO and other such agencies?

      report
    10. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      "The Science is Settled" - that human caused rapid recent increases in temperature and total global heat content from the beginning of the Holocene to now are unequivocal - meaning proven undeniable simply true and correct with over a 95% Scientific Confidence .. that's 20-1 on in betting terms. It's the nuances, the details, the certainly and speed and ups/downs of future projections where the uncertainty is the highest. It is unequivocal that 90% of the excess extra heat from human caused global…

      Read more
    11. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Hullo Alice. In west Qld at the moment, they are experiencing drought in some parts. This is directly related to lack of cyclones crossing the coast and dropping the rain inland. Yet, we are told larger & more cyclones are the cause of drought, as you do above. It can't be both. But, you dangerously mention the PETM. Possibly the one climactic event that proves beyond doubt the thesis of catastrophic man made carbon(sic) global warming is false. Quote:"Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to…

      Read more
    12. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      "Doesn't an El Nino developing in 2009 come under "some risk of a worsening El Nino event this year"?"

      Oh and an answer beginning with a "yes" or a "no" would be appreciated.

      report
    13. Dianna Arthur

      Environmentalist

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Alice, at the least fool is doing something more constructive with his finger than the shrill collective of climate denialists, who appear to need a map, a magnifying glass, a step by step guide just to find their... ear-holes...

      report
    14. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Chris, Yes.
      Now, a simple "yes" or "no" from you: Do those recorded observations of floods in 2009 by links provided show the claimed 2009 "permanent drought" from a "developing" El Nino was a misnomer? Think carefully before answering. Consider the following years.

      report
    15. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      But NASA, NOAA, all universities, CSIRO, all national science academies and bureaux of meteorology and all the peak international bodies covering relevant disciplines, such as the World Meteorological Organization, include - and rely on - publishing climate scientists. The funny thing is, they all come to pretty much the same conclusion...

      Can you come up with an explanation better than conspiracy or research grants as to why this might be the case?

      Last time I checked, I would have thought that 'because the overwhelming body of solid evidence points that way' would survive the good Bishop Occam's razor rather better than anything else.

      But I'd be interested to hear your alternative and even more parsimonious explanation.

      report
    16. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Hi Felix. Indeed, the consensus exists. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus .Can I come up with an explanation better that conspiracy or research grants? I can only quote others who have fought consensus: Albert Einstein’s response to the 1931 pamphlet "100 authors against Einstein," commissioned by the German Nazi Party as a clumsy contradiction to the Relativity Theory, said, "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough."

      report
    17. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      So yeah, if all the climate scientists are wrong.....where is the one?

      when albert einstien said one, he meant one that can prove it

      where is your one?

      report
    18. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Thanks for the content-free Gish Gallop.

      Ice-cores tell us that Pleistocene CO2 did not exceed 300 ppm in any of its interglacial warm periods, not even in the penultimate (Eemian) Interglacial. Temperatures did, however, rise to ~2 deg C wamer than the Holocene Epoch, so that's the basis of Schellnhuber's argument.

      What Schellnhuber DIDN'T specify, however, was the atmospheric CO2 concentration that accompanied that Eemian temperature peak; as of 1996, I don't think ice-cores back to the…

      Read more
    19. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Ongoing dry conditions prevail in inland parts of Qld and NSW, despite the floods near the coast and onto the Dividing Range.

      Matter of fact, the major reason we've had East coast floods is NQ/FNQ cyclones haven't been able to track east or west due to blocking high pressure systems, so headed south along the coast instead.

      Curiously enough, those slower-moving high pressure systems have also been experienced in the northern hemisphere; it was a mid-Atlantic blocking high that caused Hurricane…

      Read more
    20. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      "Yes."

      Then where, pray tell, is the problem with David Jones' forecast:

      "David Jones, the head of the bureau's National Climate Centre, said there was some risk of a worsening El Nino event this year, but it was more likely to arrive in 2010 or 2011."

      "the claimed 2009 "permanent drought""

      Where, pray tell, is the claim of "permanent drought"?

      report
    21. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      "they're only looking at the 21st century; you call that responsible? because I don't"

      The only thing I can imagine is the expectation that temperature rise will be stabilized by then.

      I think that's a pretty false expectation.

      report
    22. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Chris, the money quote: ""We are in the build-up to the next El Nino and already the drought is as bad as it has ever been — in terms of the drought, this may be as good as things get," Dr Jones said. But if you want those words exactly: January 4, 2008. "IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, ..."Perhaps we should call it our new climate," said the Bureau of Meteorology's head of climate analysis, David Jones. http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/this-drought-may-never-break/2008/01/03/1198949986473.html

      report
    23. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Mark, what part of ongoing drying out of Southern Australia don't you understand?

      It's what happens as Hadley Cells expand and subtropical arid zones expand and intensify.

      report
    24. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      David, thank you for that thoughtful reply. In all the replies I have received at the Con, that is the least abusive, measured response I have ever received. I am sincere in my thanks. But, like a dog with a bone, I can't let one of your comments go by. I am sorry but, quote,"... and it takes time for oceans to warm up while having the heat sucked back out of them into melting ice." My obvious question is going to be about Trenberth's missing heat in the oceans for the past 10 years, and the claim,"The planet is building up heat at the equivalent of four Hiroshima bombs worth of energy every second. And 90% of that heat is going into the oceans." Q: With all that heat going into the oceans, how long until the oceans heat up? https://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-how-we-imagine-climate-change-16387 . http://www.npr.org/2013/08/23/214198814/the-consensus-view-kevin-trenberths-take-on-climate-change

      report
    25. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Mark - If you can give us any justification for thinking that you might know more about climate change science than over 90% of the world's climate change scientists, then I would bother to read your post.

      Until you do so, I just assume that you are talking nonsense and non-science.

      report
    26. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      So if someone were to say that the earth was flat, and the government were to respond with evidence that this was wrong, you would dismiss this government evidence as just a "government supported consensus against one"?

      report
    27. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Michael, history has it the other way around. The Government & church said the earth was flat, and one person defied them. Do you know his name?

      report
    28. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Wrong - the church didn't say the earth was flat.

      And the way to look at these issues is evidence. I would be happy for Palmer or someone else to win a Nobel prise by proving that the vast majority of climate change scientists were wrong.

      But in years of reading the comments to The Conversation I've not once read anything that casts serious doubt on the consensus view.

      report
    29. Mark McGuire

      climate consensus rebel

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      To the Editors & Mods @ the Con, thank you for allowing this conversation.

      report
    30. Benjamin Roberts

      Rationalist

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Doesn't it concern you that that the models are wrong, the projections are wrong, that the AGW hypothesis is unsupported by empirical evidence and that after decades of research and billions of dollars poured into funding, you are still arguing a logical fallacy?

      report
    31. Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)

      Writer (ex telecommunications engineer)

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      How about providing some evidence that the IPCC reports, etc, are wrong.

      And it does concern me that The Conversation allows such nonsense and non-science as your statements to be posted.

      report
    32. Benjamin Roberts

      Rationalist

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Their acknowledgment of a warming 'hiatus' that their models did not predict.

      Former IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen summed it up best;

      'I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase'.

      I find it troubling that you are concerned that a website publishes opinions you don't agree with, while arguing logical fallacies while accusing others of 'non-science.'

      You are also demanding evidence which find equally intriguing. If you have the evidence on your side, why are you still arguing consensus?

      The same could be asked of the IPCC, for the same reason.

      report
    33. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Mass of dry atmosphere = 5.1E18 kg
      Specific heat capacity of dry air = 1006 J/kg/K
      => Atmosphere heat capacity = 5.1E21 J/K

      Mass of ocean = 1.4E21kg
      Specific heat capacity of sea water = 3990 J/kg/K
      => Ocean heat capacity = 5.6E24J/K = 1089 x heat capacity of atmosphere.

      ie to heat the oceans by 1 deg C would takes 1089 times as much energy as it would take to heat up the atmosphere by 1 deg C.

      So for ocean temperature to rise at same rate as atmosphere temperature rise, oceans would…

      Read more
    34. Jack Arnold

      Polymath

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Uhm demurrer Michael ... yes they did ... and the Pope also decreed that the Pope was infallible.

      So, TA has a religious precedent for his climate change denial.

      report
    35. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Benjamin, it's the quote from Lindzen that's proclaiming "logical fallacies" on this board.

      RE "Their acknowledgment of a warming 'hiatus' that their models did not predict."
      That comment highlights a gross misunderstanding and over-simplification of what the IPCC "models" actually present. Professional 'denialists' repeatedly misrepresent and then make claims about what the IPCC & ongoing studies actually say.
      1) The IPCC acknowledged correctly that their prior published models could not…

      Read more
    36. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Dude, I am not a climate scientist and neither are you

      So get it peer reviewed and accepted by actual climate scientists and then it will take care of itself

      ie. if it's true - it will be accepted by the scientific community and we will hear about it - if it's true then it certainly shouldn't require that you send it to randoms on the internet and ask them to evaluate it

      I think you are still not getting it - we are not climate scientists

      WE do not need to argue about this because the good folks at NASA, NOAA, MIT, Oxford Uni, ANU, CSIRO, CERN, etc already had this discussion and the result was, the earth is warming due to human activity and this is bad news for human civilization

      report
    37. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Mark it's a fair question you ask. I'd like to know if this really simple analogy might help explain the difficulties involved. First note that since man invented thermometers hundreds of years ago basic record keeping of surface air temperatures have been kept, and over time extended to almost everywhere on the earth. The recording of ocean water temperatures came later, and it is only in recent years that subsurface temp records, and satellite instruments have been able to get data. These ocean…

      Read more
    38. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Plimer’s homework assignment
      Filed under: Climate Science skeptics — gavin @ 24 August 2009
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/plimers-homework-assignment/

      Also goto: http://www.realclimate.org/ and use the search box at top right - enter 'plimer' - click 'search' button.

      PS there are 27,000 people working in climate science related fields compiling scientific data, analysing that data, preparing peer reviewed studies, and only 400 of them collate all that knowledge into the IPCC Reports. 4 or 5 of them work for free in the interest of public education at the RC website. They accept questions from the public about the science of climate change. Email them or ask a question on their public blog site. Cheers Sean

      report
    39. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      RE "church said the earth was flat, and one person defied them" That's an historical myth, and cherry-picking historical "facts". The consensus the earth was not flat but a sphere came long before the 'church/power elites' were forced to publicly change their false ideological 'beliefs'. Thousands upon thousands of the educated and knowledgeable were laughing at them for decades and centuries before then. Nothing new under the Sun here. Can you name one Chinaman in 1500 who claimed the world was flat? Chinese were sailing around the world long before Columbus set foot on a sailing ship, or Vasco Da Gama etc. Just because some people are ignorant and driven by ideological beliefs in the 1500s or now that defy scientific rigour plus common sense, is no justification for the rest of humanity to remain ignorant too. Well, in my humble opinion at least. Cheers Sean

      report
    40. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      RE "The consensus argument is a logical fallacy. It is 'non-science'."
      There is absolutely no connection between humans having an argument and Reality. It is what it is, belief has nothing to do with that, except on a personal level. eg the Sun was there long before any human being formed an "opinion" about it, or what it might mean .. this big yellow thing in the sky that feels warm. Science and human knowledge always advances forward. Not backwards. Except when civilizations collapse under their own weight of accumualated human error. Sean

      report
    41. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      So, apart from the fact that you've committed an infantile Godwin there Mark and demonstrated perfect arse-about reasoning (see the 'all crows are black' syllogism for an explanation) I'd like to see the sufficient 'one' you are talking about.

      It would be a paper published in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal. it would outline a significant body of research and it would offer significant counter-explanations of the known data and counter hypothesis/hypotheses on how the whole climate system works. It would very rapidly be hailed by the science community as a break through (despite your certainty that scientists are mostly like Nazis, there are many cases where they have rejoiced in new explanations and ideas, provided they fit the data).

      So, in short: no you can't come up with an explanation better than conspiracy.

      Come back again if you ever assemble anything even vaguely like credible evidence.

      report
    42. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Mark, it's not a 'government supported consensus against' Plimer, it was an evidence-based consensus. Yes, DCCEE did publish a refutation, but so did Professor Ian Enting and others, acting purely in a private capacity.

      And, not only is Plimer not another Einstein, his work is so egregiously bad and readily refuted that it is embarrassing.

      report
    43. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Actually, Michael, it's Plimer rather than Palmer - though the confusion is understandable!

      report
    44. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      If any of your points were actually true, they would be a concern. as they are not, they cause no more concern than the thought that the moon might be made of green cheese or pigs might fly.

      report
    45. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Benjamin, you really need to develop a more sophisticated understanding about the idea of consensus before you start lecturing others - not least practricing scientists - on what constitutes 'non-science'. Consensus isn't only a process where a bunch of people get together and hammer out a compromise they can all live with. that's merely one kind of consensus - the 'constructed', often political kind.

      On the other hand there are what I think of as 'found' consensuses: competent people examine all the available evidence and draw conclusions from that. If all the evidence points in one direction and you really can't find any significant counter-evidence or better counter-hypothesis, then you have a consensus of evidence or a found consensus. Science is based on exactly that kind of process.

      report
    46. Chris O'Neill

      Retired Way Before 70

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      "Their acknowledgment of a warming 'hiatus' that their models did not predict."

      Models don't predict and are not intended to predict statistically insignificant slowdowns.

      report
    47. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Sean, given what you've just stated, what can the models actually tell us in meaningful terms? It looks like you've just said that the CO2/temp causality is unsubstantiated:"There is NO mathematical direct connection between an increase in CO2 emissions over a decade or two and the average recorded surface temperatures." For CO2 to be the main driver of AGW there simply HAS to be a correlation.

      report
    48. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Hi John, that's a good question. The models (and there are thousands of them now) do tell us many meaningful things when we understand both their limitations and what it is they are actually saying. It is very 'complex" and that is where the most difficulty lays for everyone. Another part of the difficulty comes from 'semantics' and 'specialised jargon' that usually goes over people's heads, because imho scientists are not great communicators with non-scientists.

      Yes, what I said is correct imho…

      Read more
    49. John Phillip
      John Phillip is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Grumpy Old Man

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Sean, much clearer, I think. Thanks for the great response. You've highlighted one of the big problems that arise when trying to 'sell' CO2 mitigation : ie the uncertainty of it all. It seems that the discussion around this has become so severely polarised that the arguments have tended to become caricatures involving nothing but absolutes. It's as if the oft claimed '97% consensus' has one entirely homogenised position and the 'deniers' another when the reality is quite different. Thanks again for taking the time you have to respond. Cheers.

      report
    50. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      Post Script: on "usefulness of models" quoting from Real Climate site

      The most obvious change over time is that the visual styling of the graphs has improved over time. The latest version is far more comprehensive – including more effects, more connections, more error bars – and is, arguably, more useful. This follows from the fact that it is emissions that can be potentially moderated, and the latest iteration shows explicitly what the key emissions are (as opposed to what their consequences…

      Read more
    51. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Mark McGuire

      John, much appreciated, it was a good opportunity for me to line up my own ducks. The topic has been a stone in my own shoe. I do understand those who are "skeptical" about who says what and if it is actually true. My default position is a skeptic about most things. Denialists are of a different order usually pushing a set belief but who stopped looking for verifiable facts, whilst cherry-picking anything that might fit their beliefs. .

      The repeated use of CO2 in the public domain vs all GHGs…

      Read more
  7. Michael Shand

    Software Tester

    Great article, thanks for posting

    I am sure it will all be fine if we just ignore it, stop being so alarmist

    Is drought, famine, scarcity, poverty, really a problem?

    report
    1. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Michael Shand

      When it affects you personally, you bet it will be. Since when has the truth of the known scientific facts been alarmist simply by sharing that knowledge? I guess using this philosophy you and many lie you would prefer if no body ever told anyone that asbestos was killing people ... that Hardies should still be mining it and selling it and installing it our homes and offices. That was "alarmist" according to those who prefer to twist some basic facts into somehow being "alarmist" or an anti-capitalist conspiracy by emo-greenies.

      Climate Change & the Media site Videos by experts in their Field of Climate Science Research
      http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/yale-climate-media-forum-on-youtube/
      Who knew that Greenland is actually an atoll with a ring of mountains and a Sea in the middle?
      True Knowledge is Power & Sharing is Caring, ... not one thing "alarmist about it", unless one cries Fire in a theater and there is no fire. Sean

      report
    2. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Nah - we voted it all away, didn't we?

      By the way, when are we going to have a referendum to institute voluntary gravity so that nobody need ever fall down again?

      report
    3. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Michael Shand

      To be fair, there was no way you could have known I was being ironic.

      Allowing stupid people to spread stupid BS unchallanged is not without its consequence, so I appreciate the response

      report
    4. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Gravity has become a religion of the political left, we have been taken over by extremist fundmentalists who shun anyone who doesn't accept their dogma......

      report
    5. emily vicendese

      undergrad

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Also the appearance of a mind-independent reality is just a plot by the Matrix overlords to keep us from taking the red pills!

      report
    6. Peter Ormonde
      Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Farmer

      In reply to Michael Shand

      No no no Ms Emily ... it is yet another of the dastardly effects of globalisation and generics. Namely the declining market share of good solid Australian foil and the growing dominance of that flimsy chinese made foil we find cluttering our trolleys and cupboards... absolutely useless as a cerebral faraday cage ... as demonstrated by science ... the messages just get louder and louder.

      report
    7. Jack Arnold

      Polymath

      In reply to Michael Shand

      Voluntary gravity? Of course!!! What a wonderful antidote to broken limbs for aged persons. Perhaps these savings for Medicare would dissuade the Liars Party from privatising an economically viable public asset for the benefit of their corporate party sponsors. Genius stuff!!!

      report
    8. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Michael Shand

      That's right, if not for those pinko-lesbian-commie-watermelons my pigs would be able to fly!

      report
  8. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist: The Con is a bad Monty Python sketch, for climate sense see: http://www.thegwpf.org/

    Eds Jane and James,
    I got quite a bit out of this TEDX presentation perhaps you and others will to....

    Ivo Vegtar
    Scary bananas: How environmental exaggeration harms emerging economies.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zJn4gxCx3c#t=40

    report
    1. Sean Arundell

      Uncommon Common Sense

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Marc, the chap raises some excellent psychological truths and the effects of sophistry and verbal manipulation upon everyday people. The next step is then to take those generic truths and apply them to the climate change denialist industry, and upon the untruths and exaggerations of the likes of Lord Monkton & Co. It would be equally wise to recognise that financial wealth and national economies is not the only valid yardstick for human success and quality of life alone.

      A good experiment would…

      Read more
    2. Michael Shand

      Software Tester

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      It is a good talk but needs to be taken with a grain of salt, The issue with this talk is he says things like;

      "Because they were scared of the risk from Nuclear, they built new coal plants - Well Done Green Lobby"

      Yeahhhhhhh except the green lobby didn't ask anyone to build coal did they? ie. even if the green lobby asked you to move away from Nuclear - does anyone really think they meant move to coal? and aren't these same lobby's rallying against coal?

      also when he equates a truck of banana's with a barrell of radioactive waste - is he really suggesting that rolling around in mashed banana's is as safe as rolling around in radioactive waste?

      Grains of salt, he himself is guilty of what he rails against

      report