State of the Climate Australia

Climate now: New state of the Climate Snapshot
Reference: 10/28
More extremely hot days, fewer cold ones wetter in the north and drier in the south: this is not a forecast for Australia’s climate but a snapshot of our climate now.
15 March 2010
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology logo.

In a joint CSIRO/Bureau of Meteorology statement released today, Australia’s two lead climate science agencies have produced a snapshot of the state of the climate to update Australians about how their climate has changed and what it means.

Changes observed include:

* Highly variable rainfall across the country, with substantial increases in rainfall in northern and central parts of Australia, as well as significant decreases across much of southern and eastern Australia.
* Rapidly rising sea levels from 1993 to 2009, with levels around Australia rising, between 1.5cm and 3cm per decade in Australia’s south and east and between 7cm and 9cm in the country’s north
* About half of the observed reduction in winter rainfall in south-west Western Australia can be explained by higher greenhouse gas levels.

Bureau of Meteorology Director Dr Greg Ayers said the observed changes showed climate change was real.

“Australia holds one of the best national climate records in the world,” Dr Ayers said.

“The Bureau’s been responsible for keeping that record for more than a hundred years and it’s there for anyone and everyone to see, use and analyse.”

CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark said the Bureau data underpinned a great deal of CSIRO research.

“Understanding options for mitigation and adaptation are important research priorities for us,” Dr Clark said.

“With this snapshot, Australians will be better prepared for the next step of planning for how to adapt to a changing climate and how to also take action to reduce the impacts of climate change. CSIRO has been working with industry and in sectors of the economy such as agriculture to prepare for and implement necessary changes.”

Dr Ayers said the snapshot presented the facts in an accessible format.

“There is a thirst for good quality climate science and our two organisations are proud to publish this,” he said.

The six page snapshot is available here https://www.csiro.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html
or at
www.bom.gov.au [external link].

https://www.csiro.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html

 

YEP, and credibility zero. Nonsence claims made by climate profiteers.

Here's some abreviated comments from several threads in other forums -

A Leading Australian climate scientist claims that the temps in town X are the highest they've been since records began.

An illiterate points out that that temperatures have actually been warmer in town X many years ago, in fact in the news papers of 150 years ago, temps are mentioned that are much hotter then today.

Scientist says official records only go back 100 years and not to believe the news papers. According to the scientist, the thermometres used to record the temps 150 years ago were just hung up on the back veranda under a hot tin roof and are unreliable as there was not a proper scientific method used.

Illiterate (hmmm, when was roofing tin invented) points out that in town X the roofs of 150 years ago were in fact mainly wood shingle and in many cases there was insulation in the ceilings - it is well recorded and found with 30 seconds of googling.

Scientist continues with tin roof and cheap thermometre under tin roof theory.

Illiterate further notes that the thermometers of 150 years ago were not cheap items just randomly hung up on back veranda's.

Scientist sticks to guns with claims that THE official scientificly aproved method of temperature record in town X only goes back 100 years, and no other reliable records are available for town X.

Illiterate reading the official government records of town X discovers that ther was an official full time employed met man and met station 150 years ago and that he regularly posted his readings to the government record and news papers.

Scientist blathers something about checking the records...


Leading Australian climate 'Scientist' Blair Trewin vs 'illiterate' Flying Binghi discusing temp records for Melbourne Australia.... Who's Blair Trewin ? google is your freind...




.

 

...Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn't because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it's that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information...

Source: What is Denialism

 

Oh, ah foregot to add that Tim Flannery were conversent with the early Melbourne temp record tho could'nt be bothered enlightening Trewin....


Unrelated, tho an interesting article about climate profiteering -

Largely ignored in the local Australian media was an extraordinary story published in London’s Daily Telegraph two weeks ago which accused the Chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, ‘of making a fortune from his links with “carbon trading” companies.’ The Daily Telegraph’s revelations are explosive to say the least....
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/01/the-pachauri-affair





.

 

The above is yet another example of textbook denialism. The conspiracy was refuted, so rather than counter-argue, the denialist moved onto another tactic, that of the 'fake expert':

"...A bought-scientist or scientist/expert from an unrelated field to say that their data, lack of data, proven-flawed data or their expert opinion disproves the validity of the entire field."

Source: Hoofnagle & Hoofnagle (2007) What is denialism?

The use of the 'false expert' is classic denialist practice and is used widely by the contributors to the Quadrant magazine. Kieth Windschuttle, no less than the editor of the aforementioned magazine, was recently caught out when he used the 'false expert' denialist tactic: How Windschuttle swallowed a hoax to publish a fake story in Quadrant

 

Bernie Maddoff would have loved ya ecodharmamark ...

Now, just what we got ? .... Michaelangelica posts a news item, ah references part of the article and note it lacks credibility and i add my reasoning.... ecodharmamark talks conspiracy theorys ... ah adds an article linked via Quadrant, though written by a Pommy paper, which backs up the profiteering angle ..... ecodharmamark goes off on some unrelated tangent ..... Hmmmm... ....your starting to blather ecodharmamark....





.

 

Denialism (n): the practice of creating the illusion of debate when there is none.

Source: [URL="https://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php]What is denialism?[/URL]

 

Yep, thats what us worried tax payers keep gettin told - there's to be no debate, we are to put up the money for Al Gores trading scam and shut up.....

... anyway, back to the thread title;

Via Bolt with some bolding by me -

Australian climate scientist Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen tells the British parliamentary inquiry into Climategate just how much global warming science is corrupted by politics and money. Excerpts:

I was peer reviewer for IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)… Since 1998 I have been the editor of the journal, Energy & Environment (E&E) published by Multi-science, where I published my first papers on the IPCC. I interpreted the IPCC “consensus” as politically created in order to support energy technology and scientific agendas that in essence pre-existed the “warming-as -man-made catastrophe alarm."…

3.3 ... In persuading policy makers and the public of this danger, the “hockey stick” became a major tool of persuasion, giving CRU a major role in the policy process at the national, EU and international level. This led to the growing politicisation of science in the interest, allegedly, of protecting the “the environment” and the planet. I observed and documented this phenomenon as the UK Government, European Commission, and World Bank increasingly needed the climate threat to justify their anti-carbon (and pro-nuclear) policies. In return climate science was generously funded and required to support rather than to question these policy objectives… Opponents were gradually starved of research opportunities or persuaded into silence. The apparent “scientific consensus” thus generated became a major tool of public persuasion…

4.1 ... As editor of a journal which remained open to scientists who challenged the orthodoxy, I became the target of a number of CRU manoeuvres. The hacked emails revealed attempts to manipulate peer review to E&E’s disadvantage, and showed that libel threats were considered against its editorial team…

Full article via - https://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun...ernment_cash_created_the_climategate_scandal/

 

In the above example of the human-induced climate change denier at work, we can see that the multiple use of denialist tactics have been employed. The denialist refers to an article written by a denialist, about a denialist, for a largely denialist audience. What we have here is merely a three ring denialist circus.

Denialists are masters at the practice of using false experts and cherry picking.

Boehmer-Christiansen is not a climate scientist undertaking any empirical research. Rather, she is a merely a self-confessed '...researcher of the politics and science of climate change'. She is a false expert of the highest order. Even to point of publishing her own journal, which is a clear example of a conflict of interest: '...negative attitudes to my often sceptical journal have harmed it. Its impact rating has remained too low for many ambitious young researchers to use it, and even sales may have been affected.'

Bolt is a cherry picker of the highest order. The selective re-use of quotations from Boehmer-Christiansen's complete submission to a UK parliamentary inquiry is evidence of this.

The complete Boehmer-Christiansen submission, sans 'picked cherries', can be found here: Memorandum submitted by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (CRU 26)

Call it what you like, but sour grapes taste just like sour cherries...

 

Hmmm... ...in post two above, ah covered an event that had happened to me personaly over at WXzone forums. A well known Oz climate scientist had "cherry picked" data to suit his own ends, i.e. the Melbourne temp record. This fellow me (and others) pointed out that his data were incompleate and a look at the fuller record indicated recent temps in Melbourne were not the hottest they ever been, they been hotter over a hundred year ago. He tried to dismis the old data though all he did were show himself up as making claims on a subject he knew little about, and him the so-called unchallangable expert.

Today JoNova has an interesting commentry on "cherry picking" by the BOM and CSIRO -

(extract)
...Did the BOM forget they have hundreds of data points from back then? Did they forget to use their own Website, where you can pick-a-trend, any-trend, and choose the one with err…more convenient results? Or is it the case that their collective mission is not necessarily to provide Australians with the most complete and appropriate information available, but with what the bureaucracy needs them to know? And what they need to know, apparently, is the carefully censored version of the truth that will keep government ministers happy ...

https://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/







.

 

Denialists are usually not deterred by the extreme isolation of their theories, but rather see it as the indication of their intellectual courage against the dominant orthodoxy and the accompanying political correctness...

For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon...

...it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are...

Source: Diethelm, P. & McKee, M. (2009) Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond. European Journal of Public health. Volume 19, Issue 1, pp. 3 & 4.

 

Australia's CSIRO gives Al Gores An Inconvieniant Truth the thumbs up -

Dr Penny Whetton, CSIRO's Climate Change Impact and Risk group leader

"I was really quite moved, and given that this film was about a topic I deal with every day, this says something about how powerfully it communicates its message. Its scientific basis is very sound." 4.75 out of 5

Dr Michael Coughlan, head of the National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology

The science was generally solid, if simplistically treated. It was a bit long, but it was well produced and it kept my attention. 4

Dr Kevin Hennessy, principal research scientist, CSIRO Climate Impacts and Risk group

"The only minor quibble I had was that Gore implies that most of the climate trends and recent extreme events are due to human activities. It's not quite that simple … But easily the best documentary about global warming I've seen." 4.5

Dr Graeme Pearman, former CSIRO Director of Atmospheric Research turned consultant

"By and large, I didn't feel that the presentation overstated what we can say based on current scientific knowledge … it is not a doomsaying exercise because it is positive about what can be done." 4

Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis, National Climate Centre

"There were a number of simplifications but at no time did I feel that he was moving outside the climate science knowledge envelope." 4.9

Dr Barrie Pittock, former CSIRO Climate Impact group leader

"It is technically brilliant, remarkably accurate and up to date, and should be palatable to a wide audience. 5

Dr Kathy McInnes, senior research scientist, CSIRO Climate Impacts and Risk group

"There were bits and pieces that were glossed over … But I was surprised by how accurate the science was overall." 4.5


More of this old article here - https://www.theage.com.au/news/nati...u-decide/2006/09/08/1157222329040.html?page=2





.

 

On reading this I was wondering if Christopher Columbus was considered a denialist? Wasn't he the one who, even though the consensus of the day said that the world was flat, he thought that it was round and went off to find out?

 

G'day kerrip

Columbus was skeptical of the unscientific and unresonable assertion that the earth was flat, and set out to prove his position. Of course, the rest is history.

Denialists refute scientific consensus, or theories which have already been tested and found to be accurate, as in the case of human-induced climate change where the degree of certainty is greater than 90%. See, for example: State of the Climate.

Skeptics are not denialists, and indeed go to great pains to distance themselves from the latter: Australian Skeptics’ position on “climate change sceptics”

Hooroo, Marko.

 

Now thats funny ... , are ya saying that you can only be a sceptic if you are a member of the sceptics club ? ......


Only genuine sceptics to judge climate science...


.

 

I think you are getting into semantics Mark.

 

I don't know what you mean, Kerri.

 

"...the rediculous empty posturing of overpaid sanctimonious boofheads"


....

Thanks to markybondi for those apt words .... more commentary on the fuzzy "state of the climate" via - https://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun...ellor_could_just_not_fly_to_canberra_instead/




.

 

No, he went to the King of Spain for funding of a great money-making idea that you could reach "The Indies" (ie India & SE Asia) by sailing west, thereby beating the stranglehold of the Dutch on the spice trade, which back then was viewed with an importance not much less than the present day oil-trade. Unfortunately they found Cuba & South America and had to make do with gold, tobacco, syphilis (or so some say) & potatoes instead.

 

Quite true. I wasn't even going to try and explain that in post written in response to a preceding post that queried the difference between denialism, and skepticism. But since you have raised the subject again, Richard, there is some evidence to suggest that knowledge of a spherical Earth existed well before old Columbus set off. One bloke has even wrote what appears to be a half-decent book on the subject: Inventing the Flat Earth.

Writing of a flat Earth: It seems that the resurgence in denialism has spurned a new interest in this old clanger: The Flat Earth Society.

I'm not sure whether there are still people who believe that the earth is flat, or whether it is just trendy these days to wear a t-shirt proclaiming this belief. However, it does make one wonder how long it will be (if ever) before people stop denying that human-induced climate change is a reality.

Yours on a (roughly) spherical Earth, Marko.