Global warming probably didn’t cause the drought in Australia’s South-East Queensland according to a new paper from CSIRO.
Apparently the drought was caused when a discombobulation of the ENSO Modoki teleconnection transmogrified the rainfall into a distillation of the Johnny Walker spirulation at the convention center on Hayman Island during the post-positive phase of Pacific decadal osculation.
Being a post-postitive sceptic myself about droughts being caused by global warming, along with the IPCC, many of the worlds hydrological scientists, and most of the general population, I am pleased to see an anti-AGW report by the CSIRO press release team. They couldn’t help telegraphing their scepticism with ‘climate variability’, however, helpfully enclosing the term ‘climate variability’ in scare quotes to alert the unwary reader that ‘climate change’ cannot be ruled out (the adjective, anthropogenic, now regarded as superfluous in CSIRO press releases since it has been established beyond all doubt that all climate change is now anthropogenic in origin).
Mrs Liese Coulter (MScComm) used scare quotes again in reference to ‘the teams’ preferred methodology of “taking the average of results from a set of climate models [a]s the most effective way of ‘distilling’ a climate change signal”. A usage I fully approve of, being exclusively a red wine drinker myself and so quite unfamiliar with the fruits of the distillation employed by the ‘CSIRO’ team.
Have I made my point yet? This is not scientific explanation. It’s pseudo-scientific gobbledygook.
From Chapter 2 of the inquiry, h/t Warwick Hughes.
2.69 The Committee was astounded to learn that private enterprises are apparently able to forecast particular seasonal conditions and events, which may not necessarily have been forecast by our leading national agencies. The question that came to the mind of Committee members when this issue came to light was “how did you forecast these events and why didn’t anyone else?” When considering the skills, knowledge and expertise in our national agencies, the question that came to mind was “what do they know that CSIRO and the Bureau don’t?”
At issue may be standards required of methodology, much like the problems of alternative medicines in finding acceptance in mainstream medicine. A ‘please explain’ is the first recommendation of the committee.
The Committee recommends that CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology provide to the Australian Government a report with detailed explanatory information as to why a particular dynamic forecasting model or system was chosen for use in Australia. The report should be completed by the end of 2010.
Something to watch for. My feeling is that the BoM should largely be privatized.
As they used to say about the assassination of President Kennedy, “I remember where I was when I heard about it.” My first post a few days later was entitled Climategate. More was done in Climategate than in all the rebuttals of climate science alarmism that have been published.
So many things have changed since then, some good and some bad, qualifying Climategate as a truly defining event. Some of the things I have noticed:
- Scientific society popinjays waving the IPCC consensus in our faces.
- Burgeoning of sociological articles (Professor Naomi Oreskes) deconstructing the psychology of climate sceptics (mad).
- ClimateAudit morphs from holding feet to the fire of science/stats, to seeking justice (sad).
- Closing of the CCX, languishing of Cap-n-trade, death of the ETS.
- Many more papers demonstrating climate models are worthless, effects other than CO2 causing climate change.
- More rain!
- RealClimate readership declines even further.
Some things I have not noticed since Climategate:
- Improvement in the objectivity of climate science papers.
- Acknowledgment that sceptics might be right and that CO2 emissions cannot cause the end of civilization as we know it.
- Apologies for the sheer unprofessionalism exhibited therein.
JN reports another study confirming the finding that alterations to Australian raw weather data have increased the official trend by over 30%.
A recent submission to the arXiv archive suggests that altering the data to “inflate and dramatize weather conditions” may have a long tradition.
The Weather and its Role in Captain Robert F. Scott and his Companions’ Deaths by Krzysztof Sienicki
Abstract: A long debate has ensued about the relationship of weather conditions and Antarctic exploration. In no place on Earth is exploration, human existence, and scientific research so weather dependent. By using an artificial neural network simulation, historical (Heroic Age) and modern weather data from manned and automated stations, placed at different locations of the Ross Ice Shelf, and the Ross Island, I have examined minimum near surface air temperatures. All modern meteorological data, as well as historical data of Cherry-Garrard, high correlations between temperatures at different locations, and artificial neural network retrodiction of modern and historical temperature data, point out the oddity of Captain Scott’s temperature recordings from February 27 – March 19, 1912. I was able to show that in this period the actual minimum near surface air temperature was on the average about 13F(7C) above that reported by Captain Scott and his party. On the basis of the mentioned evidence I concluded that the real minimum near surface air temperature data was altered by Lt. Bowers and Captain Scott to inflate and dramatize the weather conditions.
And check out CA’s magnificent series on Phil Jones and the China Network.