The CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have done a brief snapshot of the state of Australia’s climate. For example this map shows the increase in mean temperature per decade from 1960 to 2009:
It has become hotter everywhere, in some regions by as much a 0.4C per decade.
This image shows the change in rainfall in mm per decade over the same period:
In spite of evidence like this Sarah Clarke reporting for the ABC wasted most of one interview in talking about whether there had been any climate change, and another on whether such changes were cause by human activity. ABC news items led with the notion that the climate debate had been “rekindled”.
Also in the report graphs tell us that in the 1960s record hot days were coming at 10 per annum. This had risen to over 20 by 2000 to 2009.
For cold days the pattern was the reverse. Over 20 records per annum in the 1960s and down to 10 this century. In both cases there was a clear decade by decade progression.
The rate of sea level rise had increased over the 20th century, markedly more in the north and west.
Sea surface temperatures have risen about 0.4ºC in the past 50 years.
In terms of GHGs both CO2 and methane concentrations were increasing.
The carbon dioxide concentration in 2009 of 386 parts per million (ppm) is much higher than the natural range of 170 to 300 ppm that has existed in the atmosphere for at least the past 800,000 years and possibly the past 20 million years.
It is going to be hotter and drier in coming decades:
Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5ºC by 2030. If global greenhouse gas emissions continue at current levels, warming is projected to be in the range of 2.2 to 5.0ºC by 2070. Warming is projected to be lower near the coast and in Tasmania and higher in central and north-western Australia. These changes will be felt through an increase in the number of hot days.
In Australia compared to the period 1981-2000, decreases in rainfall are likely in the decades to come in southern areas of Australia during winter, in southern and eastern areas during spring, and in south-west Western Australia during autumn. An increase in the number of dry days is expected across the country, but it is likely that there will be an increase in intense rainfall events in many areas.
Meanwhile our national broadcaster prefers silliness over substance in its reporting. Sarah Clarke might have asked what Australia would be like with temperature 3 to 5.0ºC hotter.
Watching Minchin’s smug and grinning performance spruiking climate denialism on last night’s 4 Corners talking about climate change and the ousting of Turnbull put me in mind of the attitude of the South African National Party in the 1970s and 80s. They knew change was a’coming, but as long as it’s not in my lifetime that’s ok.
Meanwhile, our institutions focus more and more on the short term, with the meeja’ attention span now measured in the hours. Continent drying up? Well, we’ve just had a whole lot of rain, so whoopee – don’t worry about those ivory tower scientists, what would they know? Plus, there was a whole lot of snow in the US recently, wasn’t there? A disaster happens, like the Victorian ’09 bushfires, and then because the science can’t create a soundbite sheeting the blame on climate change (it merely making such disasters more likely and more frequent), that’s the same as being totally unrelated, innit? As Garnaut noted, it’s a wicked problem that our political, economic and cultural institutions are poorly equipped to handle.
I would’ve thought Minchin and Abbott and Barnarby the Party Cretin would not be very happy at the moment with BOM and CSIRO. The whole raison d’etre for shooting down Turnbull was his policy on climate change. So when Abbott messes up (assuming he will, and given thsat Krudd will not shoot himself in the foot with his various personality disorders of which the electorate is becoming more and more aware) who do the Libs have to replace the Mafd Monk. The Viscount Turnbull of course. Minchin can’t be happy knowing that two of our premiere science organisationshave jumped on board his feared world-wide left wing atheist socialist communist anarchist green conspiracy.(Did I leave anybody out?)
And Fielding, of course, will go on believing the world was created in 4001 BC.
Shorter Sarah Clarke: Bugger the data, you seriously expect me to spend time reporting on that? What’s your response to people who say it’s nonsense? Let’s have some CONFLICT here!
I expect in the next interview she’ll ask what they think about Climategate. What do they say in response to blah blah blah?
Paul @3
I think you’ll find that’s 4004BC
Bishop Ussher’s calculation put the date at 23 October in that year, as Wikipedia sets out.
I’ll chuckle for the rest of my life, I reckon, recalling how Fielding completely missed Dawkins’s point on Q&A about the selectivity of literalist belief in the bible, and then set about providing Dawkins with illustrations. Chauncy Gardener would have been a more polished interlocutor.
Please, for the sake of balance, could ABC News pay as much attention to ABC Science, CSIRO, BoM as they do to NEWS.
Paul Burns, if the US is any guideline, Minchin is at the moment busy organising his talkback, online and email shocktroops, seeding beerparties in townhall meetings, and a burglary at CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research facility followed by personal attacks on scientist by NEWS. This will give Abbott some more ‘authenticity’ till the tide finally turns.
Phooey and a load of hooey! You’ve all been hoodwinked by the Bureau of Meteorology just like Paul and his mother were back in the 1960s when they came to visit me in Sydney. Everybody knows that Melbourne has much rainier weather than Sydney, yet Paul’s mother kept trying to give me this nonsense about the statistics in the Australian Year Book which showed that Melbourne had much less rain per year, and fewer rainy days per year, than Sydney. I tried to tell them that the BoM were perpetrating a hoax and that their rainfall records were stuffed, but they wouldn’t listen, and Paul still refuses to listen when I tell him that the BoM’s temperature records are likewise stuffed and they’re perpetrating a hoax with these kind of claims about climate warming in this latest report.
Oh and look, not only has CSIRO ended the so-called “debate” over the science, but a 25% cut in emissions could cost bugger all. So much for every single argument against concerted action.
I think this is the this is the first time two weighty and substantially independent institutions like CSIRO and BOM have publicly endorsed, and indeed calmly warned about, climate change in Australia as a happening thing.
If so, then that is the real story that our intellectually impoverished ABC Newsrooms missed. (And how do you comprehensively miss a headline like “climate alarmists fight back!!!?)
Since many of us have long lost faith in the ABC reliably reporting the news on this subject (sure to worsen after Maurice Newman’s astonishingly stupid intervention), other public institutions should perhaps step in and stand up for rational thought.
So, taking CSIRO and BOM’S gallant lead, when are our other “independent” public institutions going to stand up and be counted?
We could start with the Universities making a public declaration in support of climate science and enlightened thought and the public good and insurance risk and the precautionary principle and all that stuff. Its what they do after all.
Although this might be a problem for the Universities of Adelaide (Plimer) and North Queenland (Carter).
On the other hand, a public stoush on the front pages of News Ltd about whether intellectual charlatans like Plimer and Carter should be levered out of their taxpayer-funded sinecures, might capture the attention and concern of the audience (voterland) just in time for a Double Dissolution (say goodbye Steve).
And that can’t be a bad thing.
Well said, grace, but it’s been a long time since our universities as institutions stood up for anything other than making more money.
Grace
no. They said the same in 2007 with the release of climate change in Australia.
http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au
The stoush between science and pseudoscience wasn’t so newsworthy then.
Also all Australian scientists involved in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report gave press conferences in 2007 and both CSIRO and BoM put out press releases. The BoM have been doing annual updates that emphasise a warming signal strongly since 2007, and so on and so on and so on (I could keep going back but you get the picture).
Thanks, Roger Jones@11
I seem to remember that the practical effect of Copenhagen was not to doubt the science, but to expose the fact that USA, China and India would never agree practical measures to reduce greenhouse gases. (Without USA, China and India the rest of us can do nothing practical to change future climate.
So why do Australians contiinue to pontificate about what scientists believe rather than about how to change USA China and India’s approach?
In addition why do we not debate the ethics of committing future generations to a reduction in climate change but a smaller economic base? Essentially the USA, China and India do not think it is ethical to exchange economic growth for lower temperatures.
‘”…to a reduction in climate change but a smaller economic base?” Fair enough: But I assume we can debate that assertion too?
Ive never seen any compelling evidence to suggest action would interrupt economic growth. I’ve just seen it asserted a lot by people who oppose action.
Miranda says it will wreck the economy.
Good point, Lefty E #14, and it’s my cue to introduce Eban Goodstein to the discussion.
Actually Paul’s grandmother was right on one small count. As of 1960 Melbourne had less rain – but more rainy days – than Sydney. In fact Melbourne still has, over the entire historical record, more rainy days than Sydney byt he barest of margins (0.1 day per year) but if current trends continue, that will be wiped out pretty quickly.
Sometimes in Melbourne you can walk through the rain for an hour without getting wet…
A price on carbon will wreck the economy in the same way that compulsory super, or unfair dismissal laws, or leave loading, or an eight day week all in their time turned our economy into a smouldering wreck.
Enlighten us Martin B @ 18: how will this impending “wreckage” manifest itself?
Moreover, how has the Superannuation Guarantee system affected Australia’s economy?
Your irony detector might need a service.
Hal9000,
Thanks. See,you make these stupid mistakes when you’re not a Creationist.
I can remember Pilmer arguing against Creationism. Has he changed to believing in Bishop Ussher yet?
I particularly liked the CSIRO/BOM conclusion to this very concise statement, that ‘climate change is real’ And of course the sparing use of graphs, showing exactly that reality could not be ignored by most media pundits – here’s hoping. Trend lines are unequivocal. Let’s hope Rudd has a spare copy when he supposedly discusses AGW with Obama and the pair steel themselves to act asap.
@20 Martin B’s ability to explain sweeping, unjustified assertions, needs a complete overhaul.
It’s a joke joyce!
grace @ 9, if I’m not mistaken Carter is Professor Emeritus, though he certainly does a some real work in his substantive area of expertise from time to time.
“Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: you understand it better, but the frog dies in the process.” Mark Twain
To give what tiny amount of credit is due, Carter is a stratigrapher, and thus his mainstream scientific career does have an intersection with paleoclimatic science. Of course this gives him no particular expertise in atmospheric physics – and boy, does it show.
Brian@25, yes, and I wonder whether any emeritus has ever had his/her favours withdrawn? Probably not, because the “incipient dementia” card could always be deployed in sympathy.
Paul Burns (and others), Fielding isn’t a Creationist, he’s a Crayshist! Get with the program!
Obviously the BOM and the CSIRO are full of lefty pinko sympathisers. Wait until Abbott and co. get into power and they will be able to turn it into free market anti-left mouthpieces as obviously they have been able to do with the ABC.
No need to pull the rug under Plimer, Carter et al. What we really need is LEADER(s), with the necessary guts to stand up to the various shock jocks, assorted flat earthers, bile bashers, ‘one nation’ teaparty wingnuts, freemarket-go for growth dingbats and associated cooperate bullies, including a certain Mr Murdoch.
Grace, I believe they have.
Yay for Ootz. Well said.
Thanks Chookie@32, and they need to speak a little louder…
DR (nr),
Oh, I didn’t realise he was that fervent a supporter of childcare in the workplace.
Sarah Clarke’s efforts bear the marks of the new denialism which hides behind the pomo rhetoric of “rekindling the debate.” Her questions to Greg Ayers were simply a disgrace, and if Maurice Newman did his job properly, Sarah Clarke should be moved sideways in the news department where she can do less harm. However, this isn’t going to happen, because Newman himself is a denialist. Newman himself should be dismissed from his position at the ABC, but this isn’t going to happen either because the Minister, Stephen Conroy, isn’t doing his job properly either. Maybe that’s because Conroy is a denialist.
In the end, it comes down to Kevin Rudd, who bears the ultimate responsibility for the ABC doing its proper duty to the Australian people. However, I get the impression that Rudd himself likes the ABC as it is, that he wants the public kept underinformed on climate change, because that gives him an excuse to delay meaningful action on reducing carbon emissions.
On the other hand, kudos to the ABC for giving the CSIRO and BoM the airtime. I’m sure none the commercial stations are interested in informing the public adequately on climate change. After all, what’s in it for them?
I live in Adelaide where we have only one news paper and this article Csiro/Bom today was not even mentioned once, I just dont get it lots on lara bingle and football but nothing, i feel rather ashamed, what’s going on, the oz had it about two paragraphs etc. Makes me real sad
Actually, Paul, my oldest son and I were riffing on Crayshists the other night. What if the universe and everything in were created by a giant Crayfish-in-the-sky about 6,000 years ago? (A bit like the FSM, only different.) That’d explain the Jewish aversion to shellfish. It’d also make people who habitually eat shellfish prepared in the usual way nervous, I would think.
I get it Paul> Unfortunately I lost my crayshist credentials during the war when I refused to sleep during the afternoon at Lady Gowrie creche in North Carlton.
Brian: “The rate of sea level rise had increased over the 20th century, markedly more in the north and west.”
Oy!!! What’s with this uneven sea level rise?
Are we tipping into the sea in the Kimberley region?
Dang! I knew we shouldn’t have been producing so much oil and gas up there. Now it’s all collapsing under us…
Phil mate, stop relying on NEWS to get accurate and relevant information. All you get there is a supasized pap of Entertainment, adverts, spin, adverts, infotainment, adverts, more spin, advert, hollywood, advert, Ossie, ossie, oi, oi, oi; more adverts, memes and hardley normal adverts,- I think you get the picture, not? The NEWS boss is trying to bully the old auntie around to stop her gossiping stuff about this climate stuff, while we should PAY and have fun with his smoke and mirrors mixed with a dash of theater and games on top of consumer strength stodgy filler.
Now if it is not good for you, just like cigarettes, stop smoking and tell all your mates to stop smoking too. Suddenly you don’t have to put up with all that stench around you anymore. Or would we we rather entertain us to death?
I’m not too sure if this is relevant here, but the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reports that even a “little” nuclear war will stop AGW. It also says that it would make the planet pretty close to uninhabitable.
Tomorrow on Australia Talks they are going to have the head honcho of the ABC on the program to say whether they are fulfilling their charter and stuff.
I’ll be heading to the Land of the Long White Cloud to walk the Milford Track.
Easy there, Elise, it’s only a few millimetres.
Terangeree, if we need to geoengineer us out of the picture, I’d rather participate personally. Thereby I get to utter the famous words ‘Now, I Am Become Death, Destroyer of Worlds’ as I proceed along the way of BAU.
Nevermind the ABC, what I would like to understand is, what is Murdoch’s motivation for supporting denialism or opposing agw activism? What stops him to give the latest BoM and CSIRO ‘notification’ a prominent airing?
I’m a little surprised to see Sarah Clarks’s questions characterised as part of the new denialism.
I see them as very, very gentle softballs for the interviewees to belt as hard as they can. Clarke had something like a 2 minute window on AM and PM, without the visual help of the nice graphics in the report or above. So she uses that window to set up a “hey authority figure from authority institution. Denialism is rubbish. Go for it”.
Brian43
That is a great walk, very beautiful, at the end of which people start saying “another water fall?” There is a spot along the track where the annual rainfall is 8 metres per year. There is no doubt that you will experience some of that.
I thought to check that figure and found this jaw dropping info
Wettest known locations
Cherrapunji, situated on the southern slopes of the Eastern Himalaya in Shillong, India is one of the wettest places on Earth, with an average annual rainfall of 11,430 mm (450 in). The highest recorded rainfall in a single year was 22,987 mm (905.0 in) in 1861. The 38-year average at nearby Mawsynram, Meghalaya, India is 11,873 mm (467.4 in).[141] The wettest spot in Australia is Mount Bellenden Ker in the north-east of the country records an average of 8,000 millimetres (310 in) per year, with over 1,200 millimetres (47 in) of rain recorded during 2000.[142] Mount Waialeale on the island of Kaua?i in the Hawaiian Islands averages more than 11,680 millimetres (460 in) of rain over the last 32 years, with a record 17,340 millimetres (683 in) in 1982. Its summit is considered one of the rainiest spots on earth. It has been promoted in tourist literature for many years as the wettest spot in the world.[143] Lloró, a town situated in Chocó, Colombia, is probably the place with the largest measured rainfall in the world, averaging 13,300 mm (520 in) per year.[144] The Department of Chocó is extraordinarily humid. Tutunendo, a small town situated in the same department, is one of the wettest estimated places on Earth, averaging 11,394 mm (448.6 in) per year; in 1974 the town received 26,303 mm (86 ft 3.6 in), the largest annual rainfall measured in Colombia. Unlike Cherrapunji, which receives most of its rainfall between April and September, Tutunendo receives rain almost uniformly distributed throughout the year.[145] Quibdó, the capital of Chocó, receives the most rain in the world among cities with over 100,000 inhabitants: 9,000 millimetres (350 in) per year.[144] Storms in Chocó can drop 500 mm (20 in) of rainfall in a day. This amount is more than falls in many cities in a year’s time.
I had a listen again at the extended interview by Sarah Clarke of Megan Clark, and I have to agree with you Steven. The extended interview also included questions such as, is AGW science communication well enough and are skeptiks
winning the debate. On the later, Megan Clark made a rather interesting analogy with the women right movement and the ridiculous scientific arguments that had to be endured, such as measuring women craniums to prove that they had the same intelligence. As it is clear from my previous comments I am pretty grubby about the rest of the media mob, particularly NEWS for their absolute lack of interest in accurate and relevant reporting on this issue.
BIlB, closer to home, Mt Bellenden Ker has the record for the highest rainfall in a calendar year of 12,461 mm (490.6 in) in 2000 and the highest rainfall in Australia for a calendar month of 5,387 mm (212.1 in) in January 1979. Where as the golden gumboot goes to Tully although with serious competition from Babinda. Our Wet Tropics also feature fantastic treks through World Heritage rainforest, including up Qlds highest mountain and on Hinchinbrook Island.
Interviewed by Sarah Clarke for RN tomorrow morning as a precursor to the Universities Australia National Policy Forum
Climate Change: bridging scientific knowledge and public policy
Mural Hall, Australian Parliament House, Thursday 18 March 2010
I won’t be listening but those who are can deliver their reactions.
Last week (Thursday) Climate Scientists Australia were at Parliament. Science meets parliament was on the day before that.
Hopefully, the kickback is kicking back.
The Americans have been busy, too: http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/
I actually wrote to the CSIRO yesterday commending Ms Clark on her contribution and offering one or two suggestions. I received a positive and substantive response.
I think our public officials need to know that when they do the right thing, people will support them. I suspect most people write only when they are bothered, so the more letters they get from those of us who are engaged with the science, the better.
The Bolt has finally deigned to misread the report.
The Bolt now has an argument with his own employer.
Roger @48: “Hopefully, the kickback is kicking back.”
Good on you!!!
I reckon the silent majority will be watching and willing you on, even if they don’t speak out.
The truth will out, and the sooner the better…!
Roger, when was your interview? I thought I heard about 3 seconds from a Dr Roger Jones during the 6:30 am news, but that was it.
DI(nr),
maybe that’s all there was – some grabs on the news. Perhaps a short grab in the morning roundup. Yesterday was very busy in Canberra but the Forum was well attended.
The presentations will be appearing on this site
http://www.scienceinpublic.com/blog/ua
MP3s of the forum sessions can be obtained from here http://www.aussmc.org/ClimateChangeForumMar10.php
Thanks for the links, Roger.
Steven @ 43 and Ootz @ 47, what disappointed me was that Sarah Clarke in the short time available on programs like AM and PM chose to talk about scepticism/denialism rather than the climate as such. The interview was about one paragraph on the last page.
BilB @ 46, they told us on the bus that the eastern shore of Lake Te Anau gets 1.5m of rain pa, whereas the western shore gets 3m. On the coast they said it was about 7m.
We had a bit of everything, including strong winds and driving rain going over the MacKinnon Pass. Then a spectacular storm just after we had finished the walk and were spending the night at the settlement of Milford Sound itself. Almost 200mm of rain in the night and they said wind gusts up to 140kph with over 8,000 lightning strikes. One guy, perhaps the most rational of us, slept under the stair case. Most were worried about the plate glass which covered one whole side of the rooms blowing in and in fact near the lounge one a glass panel did. Road closed for three days with trees down and slips. We got hoiked out next day by helicopter at the hiking company’s expense.
I hope to do a post when we sort out the photos.
That would be appreciated (as long as kiwi jokes are allowed).
Here’s Sarah Clarke writing about the science for a change.
That sounds like a thoroughly memorable experience. Well done!