Cool 2010 and 2011, but planet "still warming" says BoM

Still warming, just you wait…

If there were no agenda of global warming, there would be no need for comments like those of David Jones, reported in The Australian today.

The fact that a senior Bureau meteorologist believes it necessary to defend model projections that the planet will continue to warm, despite two cooler years (and a relatively flat global temperature profile for the last decade), reveals the motivations at work behind the scenes.

Environment editor at The Australian, Graham Lloyd, doesn’t help to dispel this impression, and warns “those looking to disprove climate change” that the planet is still warming [er, who's trying to "disprove climate change" again?].

“In 2011, the La Nina and heavy rainfall acted like an evaporative cooler for Australia,” said bureau climate change spokesman David Jones.

“The year 2010 was relatively cool in recent historical context and 2011 was cooler again.”

Mr Jones said there was no evidence to link the strong La Nina weather systems with changing global temperatures.

“We have had this regular cycle of La Nina and El Nino,” he said. “The strongest El Nino on record was in 1997 and we have seen one of the strongest La Ninas on record in 2010-11.”

Mr Jones said the climate science was not very clear on what would happen with El Nino and La Nina patterns, particularly at this early stage of global warming.

“We have only seen one degree of warming so far but we will see substantially more as we move through the century, but it is probably too early to draw any concrete relationship between hotter temperatures and La Nina,” he said.

“One simple thing we can say is we know La Nina are historically cooler for Australia but there is a big difference between variability and climate change.”

The BOM climate statement said Australia’s mean rainfall total for last year was 699mm, which was 234mm above the long-term average of 465mm, making it the third-wettest year since comparable records began in 1900.

Where’s Tim Flannery when you need him to explain all his failed predictions of a never-ending drought?

The Australian area averaged mean temperature was 0.14C below the 1961-1990 average of 21.81C. Last year, maximum temperatures averaged 0.25C below normal across the country, while minimum temperatures averaged 0.03C below normal.

And then Jones goes into full prickly defensive mode:

“Despite the slightly cooler conditions, the country’s 10-year average continues to demonstrate the rising trend in temperatures, with 2002-2011 likely to rank in the top two warmest 10-year periods on record for Australia, at 0.52C above the long-term average,” the bureau said.

“If you are interested in determining whether the planet is warming, you look at the global temperature,” Mr Jones said. (source)

And if you look at global temperatures for the last decade, there isn’t much warming to see there either.

If the BoM hadn’t sold out to climate alarmism, there wouldn’t be any need for such awkward justifications.

Comments

  1. Here’s a 2007 Climategate 2.0 email from David Jones to Phil Jones ….

    0601.txt
    cc: “Shoni Dawkins”
    date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +100 ???
    from: “David Jones”
    subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
    to: “Phil Jones”
    Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
    Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the Australian data is in pretty good order anyway.
    Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of collapse – across NSW farmer have received a 0% allocation of water for the coming summer and in Victoria they currently have 5% allocations – numbers that will just about see the death of our fruit, citrus, vine and dairy industries if we don’t get good spring rain).
    The odd things is that even when we see average rainfall our runoffs are far below average, which seems to be a direct result of warmer temperatures. Recent polls show that Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism.
    Regards David”

    According to David Jones there’s no need for any scientific data to answer ‘scientifically incompetent sceptics’. If they’re not baffled already with the bullshit then they should be able to see the results of climate change for themselves! Really?

  2. Lew Skannen says:

    Excellent appraisal of the situation, Simon.

    “likely to rank in the top two warmest 10-year periods on record for Australia,”

    There will always be a statistic they can find to use.

    “likely to be one of the hottest years in a record cold decade”, “could be the warmest year in Tasmanian history in which people have died of frostbite” …

  3. I’m so tired of these liar around the world. All they are is money hungry greedy people.

  4. check out this link from BOM. It shows the trend in average temp since 1910. About 0.1 degree Celsius. But the longer data shows things they don’t want us to see…

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi?map=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&period=1910

    • sillyfilly says:

      If you could read the graph it states:
      Trend in Mean Temperature 1910-2010 (C/10 years).

      Here the trend map of the same data.
      http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=T

      Pity you can’t read what your seeing.

      • Indeed, silly filly, you had better take a more careful look yourself.

        “Linear trend of 0.09C per decade” and “based on 30-year climatology 1961-1990″

        So 0.09C per decade translates into 0.9C per century, right?

        And why would it be based on a 30-year span only – from 1961-1990 – if it purports to show a century long trend, hmm?

        And my charting cousin in the stockbroking business would point to the last 4-5 years as a “downward break in the long-term trend”, with predictions of “further downside risk”.

        • sillyfilly says:

          Do I need to tell you how to calculate an anomaly?
          PS Also check the x-axis on the chart ( Or link back to the map)

        • The Loaded Dog says:

          Hahaha. Bored are we sillyfilly? It cracks me up to see all the Bolt Trolls aimlessly wandering around desperately looking for an audience for their warmist doctrine.

      • PS: your link is not to a map but a chart, but I know – “picky, picky!”

      • wrong place DopeyFillet.

        the people here will rip you apart without breaking a sweat. !

    • Tom, on the 99,9999999999% of the surface area on the planet is not monitored. b] satellite takes two dimensional temperature ”occasionally”of the hottest layer of air, no matter if is 1m, or 1km thick; and they send a balloon ones a month… Temperature on individual place in the troposphere changes every 10-15 minutes, because of vertical and horizontal winds.

      Tom, unlike on the moon, temperature distribution on the earth is 3 dimensional!!!! 2] on the earth temperature is NEVER EVENLY distributed as in human body. When is under the armpit 1C warmer = the whole body is warmer by that much. Tom, you and everybody who believes that: the crappy data dished to all of you by the people that you all are trying to discredit… you need a shrink, not another misleading tread!!! Tom, when you are distributing Warmist B/S, you should ask your brains-trusts / the IPCC; to put on the label of that bullshit, how many kilojoules per shovelful is?!

      The only reason the Warmist are prospering is; because of the sceptical people stopped using something called: common sense. Nobody knows what the temperature on the planet is, to save his / her life. When somebody says that the GLOBAL temperature is gone up or down by 0,5C; that is not giving you data; but telling you, admitting that he / she is a liar. have a nice day Tom

  5. I have to laugh when the BOM says “likely” in terms of longer term predictions. Their failure rate for long term forecasts has been abysmal, ever since they sold out to AGW. Here’s one example from Warwick Hughes:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=1234

    There’s plenty more where that came from.

  6. sillyfilly says:

    Maybe you might look at this from the Annual Australian Climate Statement (BOM)

    http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20120104.shtml

    Globally, 2011 the warmest La Niña year on record
    Preliminary data released by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on 29 November estimated the global mean temperature for 2011 (January-October) at 0.41 °C ±0.11 °C above the 1961 to 1990 annual average of 14.0 °C. At present, 2011’s nominal value ranks as the equal tenth-highest on record, with the 13 warmest years having all occurred in the 15 years since 1997. The 10-year global average from 2002-2011 was 0.46 °C above normal, making it the equal-hottest 10-year period on record.

    Of the 23 climate regions monitored by the WMO globally, northern Australia was the only region to record cooler than normal temperatures during 2011, in association with very heavy rainfall.

    Years commencing with a strong La Niña are typically 0.10 to 0.15 °C cooler than the years preceding and following them. Although global temperatures have not been as warm as the record-breaking values seen in 2010, 2011 was the warmest La Niña year on record.

    So it appears the natural oscillations are not the controlling influence on the 20 th Century warming. So much for the vaunted “climate alarmism”, must be a figment of your imagination.

    • Confusious says:

      I see Sillfilly made the transfer from Bolta’s and Blair blog to ours. It is indeed fitting name…..
      Since there is a global effort by warmist to skew data to favor their preset conclusions, even going so far as to select “monitoring sites” which will guarantee results their wanted through secondary thermal polution, one should not be surprised. Given that your WMO, which should stand for Warming Mongering Organization, is making hansome money from the global taxpayers, it is not surprising that they come with all these twisted and turned “proofs” which sillyfillies far and wide get so excited about. As mentioned elsewhere, BoM is furiously defending their place at the taxpayer filled through, as do the CSIRO “climate “scientists”. It’s a feeding frenzy sillyfilly………..!

    • Actually SillyFilly the worlds temperatures at present are quite normal and boring when compared back to 2500BC and not 1850!

    • Oh sillyfilly you’ve done it again!

  7. John Nicol says:

    Dr David Jones has a PhD in Meteorology. OMG! He has yet to realise that, following the Little Ice Age (LIA) when Europe staved for want of crops and people skated on the Thames as late as April every year until about 1850, the earth had three choices – continue cold, get colder or warm back towards the temperature during the Medeaval Warm Period (WMP). It chose to become warmer, naturally and without the assistance of increased carbon dioxide – all on its own. As it beccame warmer and subsequent increases in atmospheric CO2 were measured, it became fashionable for the cause of the warmer – NOT the most rapid warming of the early years, but from 1979 to 1997. This little patch of warming has been defined to be due to increases in carbon dioxide, while earlier, quitenatural warming events followed by some cooling are agreed to be ntural! However, as one might expect, the warming trend up to 1998, took us to the highest temperatures since the LIA. The temperature has now peaked for awhile and so all years MUST be in the highest since the LIA.
    This fact seems to have been not understood by Dr David Jones PhD! David, I will help you. We are in a period which is the warmest since 1850 after a period of warming,with some decadal oscillations. Even if the globe were cooling rapidly, given the natural vsariations from year to year, about half of the most recent years in the last ten will be EXPECTED to be significantly warmer than the previous 150 years, simply because we are at the top of the cycle – nothing whatsoever to do with climate change continuing to warm the globe. Just random behaviour near the top provides some peaks which are higher than anything else before. Got it now?

  8. Confusious says:

    It’s simple. We have saying back home “whose bread you eat, their songs you sing”.
    That’s exactly what the Labor/Green Charlatans at CSIRO and BoM are doing. How else, given the tens of millions of dollars sucked from Australian taxpayer and handed over to these clowns to generate everincreasing volumes of BS.
    Computer jargon has that wonderful statement of “garbage in, garbage out”. That about sums up all these models. Only really mentally challenged or absolutely corrupt politicians such as Julia, Swannie, Combet, Conroy and similar genetic throwbacks will believe that or pretend to, for their own sinister means. Brown Bob and his bevy of brainless followers stand apart as they fall under the lunatic fringe.

  9. Before banging on again about predicted warming, Jones’ nose should be rubbed into this graph (source). By now, according to his alarmist industry, global temperatures should be tracking the uppermost projection. The reality is in red.

    • sillyfilly says:

      Pat Michaels tried to make these tawdry comparisons in a paper to the US congress and, of course, it was replicated by the JoNova bandwagon as well.
      If you knew the full story, Hansen predicted a global climate sensistivity (for a doubling of CO2)of 4.2 DC in 1988. The use of this factor in his modew resulted in an overestimated temperature response.
      If he had utilised a climate sensitivity of 3.4 DC (well within the IPCC current band and higher that their central estimate of 3DC) he would have been spot on. Mind you there are many updates to this since 1988.

      If anybody cares to read the facts then have a look here. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

      If you want to read more of nonsense on the subject go here. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/scary-exaggerations-unfounded/

      • Not you again, sf. Blah blah blah. Anyone can tweak their predictive models after the event to keep their scam afloat. The gig’s up. On your horse, baby.

  10. Grant Macgill via Facebook says:

    of course it is going to say that it is a government website

  11. Richard N says:

    It would take another mini ice age for the warmist fraternity to even entertain the thougt that the AGW theory might be seriously flawed, and even then they would change to “climate change” mode and somehow blame the cooling on man made CO2 emissions. We are sick and tired of these type of unsubstanciated Al Gore type doomsday claims.Get real BOM!

  12. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    What is it with government agencies like the BoM… don’t they look at the real world observational data?

    Silly me… of course, the carbon tax!!!!!!! The BoM must maintain the ‘rage’ to support justification for the carbon tax.

    The BoM still refuses to recognise that IPCC climate theory is simply wrong, and has been proven wrong… and those who still believe in the IPCC’s water vapour feedback theory, amplifying temperature, are now just passengers on the Ship of Fools!

  13. It sounds like Jones has found a negative feedback effect in the climate system. He should work that into the climate models. They might then have some ‘skill’ in prediction vs. the current complete lack of predictive skill the models currently have (with their built-in positive feedback assumptions).

  14. Intresting how the self proclaimed MENTAL GIANTS see anyone that does not agree with them as uneducated. Who on earth would trust any of the data produced by these self interested clowns? I’d be producing data that achieves the financial results that they have if i thought I could get the finacial rewards attached to the warming theory. FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL thats all you need to do.

  15. To me, the phrase “…particularly at this early stage of global warming…” reeks of scientific ignorance – whichever side of the debate you choose to follow.

    I am so sick of talking to people, and hearing people, who wholeheartedly believe that changes in climate are entirely caused by humans. At least the author is an environment editor, not a science editor, there’s some vague sense of relief there.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,707 other followers

%d bloggers like this: