OPEN Letter To The Bureau Of Meteorology – Tropical Cyclone Trends

tc-graph-1969-2012.png

Graph showing the number of severe and non-severe tropical cyclones from 1970–2011 which have occurred in the Australian region. Severe tropical cyclones are those which show a minimum central pressure less than 970 hPa.

Dear BoM,

I have been a keen observer of weather and climate for well over a climate point (42 years)!

The chaotic system of climate and “climate change” is ever fascinating. Though, today the ‘chaos’ has been replaced by an unhealthy polarization of “the science”, all too often determined by belief, politics and ideology. Sadly, dogma has trumped empirical evidence, corrupting the scientific method.

That said, I am seeking from you an updated version of the cyclone trends graph which ends at 2011. The BoM site has excellent data up to 2017 to complete the series. Is there a reason why the data has not been translated to the current graph? I would be happy to work on getting it up to date if resources are limited!

As a start, there is a written record from 2012-2015 here: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/index.shtml

However, this record does not quite match the said graph 1969 – 2011. Methodology for what qualifies the graphed record would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jamie Spry (Melbourne, Australia)

 


THE “Blizzard Of Oz” That Wasn’t Meant To Be

Blizzard of Oz.jpg

Australian snowfields rejoice after ‘Blizzard of Oz’ turns slopes into winter wonderland

via ABC.net.au

It’s been dubbed “the Blizzard of Oz”, and powder hounds could not be happier.

Australia’s ski resorts in the Snowy Mountains, in New South Wales, and Victoria’s Alpine National Park were covered with the white stuff this morning after both reported the best falls of the season at the weekend.

More than 1.15 metres of snow has been dumped at Thredbo from Friday morning to 6:00am today.

Blizzard of Oz1.jpgPHOTO: More than 1.15 metres of snow has been dumped at Thredbo. (Instagram: @_carlyt) Blizzard of Oz2.jpg

PHOTO: Mt Hotham, in Victoria’s Alpine National Park, looked more like Europe at the weekend. (Instagram: @sarahwhite2017)Blizzard of Oz3.jpgPHOTO: The snow at Falls Creek. (Instagram: @fallscreek)

Australian snowfields rejoice after ‘Blizzard of Oz’ turns slopes into winter wonderland – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
•••

BUT, wasn’t ‘snowfall’ meant to be “a very rare and exciting event.” And, that “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” ?

Those expert predictions made back in 2000 by esteemed climatologist Dr David Viner of the UK’s CRU (Climate Research Unit):

From the Independent’s most cited article: “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past” by Charles Onians:

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

THE Independent has since removed the article! The page used to look like this:

snowfall-thing-of-the-past-404

The original article:

snowfall-thing-of-the-past-original

Link now boots back to their homepage.

Our friends at WUWT have preserved the entire article as a PDF for posterity:

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past – The Independent (PDF)

In fairness, perhaps the good Dr Viner was colluding consulting with the virtuous partners of climate catastrophe expertise – the UN IPCC who, as well, predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased…

ipcc-less-snow

IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001 – Complete online versions | GRID-Arendal – Publications – Other

warmer-winters-ipcc

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Australia’s “premier” scientific government organisation, the (warmist) CSIRO, jumped on the “end of snow” bandwagon in August 2003:

Simulations of future snow conditions in the Australian alpine regions were prepared for the years 2020 and 2050…

Conclusion:

The low impact scenario for 2020 has a minor impact on snow conditions. Average season lengths are reduced by around five days. Reductions in peak depths are usually less than 10%, but can be larger at lower sites (e.g. Mt Baw Baw and Wellington High Plains).

The high impact scenario for 2020 leads to reductions of 30-40 days in average season lengths.  At higher sites such as Mt Hotham, this can represent reductions in season duration of about 25%, but at lower sites such as Mt Baw Baw the reduction can be more significant (up to 60%)…

We have very high confidence (at least 95%) that the low impact scenarios will be exceeded and the high impact scenarios will not be exceeded.

https://www.climatechange.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/73212/TheImpactofClimateChangeonSnowConditions2003.pdf 

(Page Not Found – LOL !)

In 2014, the New York Times signalled “The End of Snow”:ScreenHunter_314 Feb. 07 11.00

The End of Snow? – NYTimes.com

•••

BACK IN THE REAL WORLD

Winter Northern Hemisphere snow extent is trending upwards, and 2017 was amongst the highest on record, despite rising CO2 emissions and the “Hottest Year Evah” thing:

Screen Shot 2017-08-07 at , August 7, 4.07.56 PM

Rutgers University Climate Lab :: Global Snow Lab

AND as for the expert predictions of the CSIRO, who assured us of the end of snow by 2020/2030…

Australia’s snowfields have been overdosed by snow over the past decade.

In fact, SH snow extent is increasing as global CO2 rises – the exact opposite of what you were told by all those experts

2016 – Extended season:

screen-shot-2017-02-22-at-february-22-8-05-58-pm

Heavy snow forecast for the Australian Alps despite ski season ending a month ago

2017 – THE “Blizzard Of Oz” ! :

Blizzard of Oz4.jpg

Blizzards close in on Melbourne, floods hit South Australia | The Australian

WHEN will those expert scientists, esteemed government agencies and respected mainstream media outlets who peddle the fake global warming catastrophe, spreading scientific falsehoods with impunity, be held to account? Or at least admit they got it wrong?

That “science” certainly ain’t “settled”.

•••

UPDATE – August 8, 2017

Emergency services warn of avalanches in Victoria’s alpine region

Screen Shot 2017-08-08 at , August 8, 8.45.01 AM.png

Click to Play…

EMERGENCY services have issued an avalanche warning for Victoria’s alpine region as tourists have been urged to avoid skiing, snowboarding, or hiking in remote areas.

Warmer weather and strong wind is expected to increase the risk of avalanches at Mt Bogong, mt feathertop, Mt Buller, Mt Hotham and Falls Creek today.

Victorian alpine region: avalanche warning issued for skiers, snowboarders | Herald Sun

DO hope SMH’s (Fairfax media) resident global warming catastrophist Peter Hannam has received this alert, if he plans to visit Australia’s ski fields. The one’s that he and those expert scientists say won’t be around much longer thanks to you and your SUV…

Snowy retreat: Climate change puts Australia’s ski industry on a downhill slope

Peter Hannam Peter Hannam

August 5 – Last week’s fake news – Sydney Morning Herald

Australia’s ski resorts face the prospect of a long downhill run as a warming climate reduces snow depth, cover and duration. The industry’s ability to create artificial snow will also be challenged, scientists say.

Snowy retreat: Climate change puts Australia’s ski industry on a downhill slope

•••

 

Related :

CSIRO Dud-Predictions Related :

 


Homogenization of Temperature Data By the Bureau of Meteorology

“None of these organizations will say or explain what they are doing or are being vague when asked. Raw data is being removed from public scrutiny and no one knows if it is actually being destroyed. Officially they are providing no scientific basis for making these adjustments.”

“Once you start introducing reasons to make adjustments then it becomes too easy to use them as an excuse to adjust everything to suit a purpose. It becomes easy to allow for political interference. Political interference should be impossible.”

Welcome to the political, pseudoscientific world “man-made” global warming…

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Brendan Godwin

Background

I worked for Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology – BOM for 2 years from 1973 to 1975. I was trained in weather observation and general meteorology. I spent 1 year observing Australia’s weather and 1 year observing the weather at Australia’s Antarctic station at Mawson.

As part of it’s Antarctic program, Australia drills ice cores at Law Dome near it’s Casey station. On our return journey in 1975 we repatriated a large number of ice cores for scientific analysis. The globe’s weather and climate records are stored in these ice cores for the past 1 million years approximately.

Australia’s Antarctic program went by the name of Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition or ANARE for short. This is now known as Australian Antarctic Division or AAD. Returned expeditions formed a club called the ANARE Club of which I have been a member since 1975. Members have…

View original post 2,046 more words


Why CSIRO and BoM Cannot Be Trusted On Anything “Climate Change”

CSIRO.jpg

 

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is the federal government agency for scientific research in Australia. It was founded in 1926 originally as the Advisory Council of Science and Industry.

In the field of climate science, the CSIRO leans staunchly towards the alarmist side of the climate debate. One example shows the CSIRO using sea level rise figures far in excess of even the (warmist) IPCC.

The Australian reports:

In its 2012 report, State of the Climate, the CSIRO says that since 1993 sea levels have risen up to 10mm a year in the north and west. That means that somewhere has had a 19cm-rise in sea level since 1993. Where is this place? The European satellite says that sea levels have been constant for the past eight years.

In its latest 2016, State of the Climate report, the CSIRO indulges in a blatant cherry-picking exercise to further push their agenda that human emissions are causing the climate to change.

They fail, however, to inform you of their chronic list of failed predictions from previous SOC reports.

This is why scientific organisations like CSIRO and BoM have – tragically – become almost the last places to hear the truth about the global warming climate change. Too many reputations are now at stake.

Andrew Bolt, yet again, sets their record straight from their own records! …

•••

The CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology this week published their latest State of the Climate report:

Observations and climate modelling paint a consistent picture of ongoing, long-term climate change interacting with underlying natural variability.

Strangely, the report fails to explain why past predictions by the Bureau and the CSIRO of a permanent drought turned out so wrong.

Here is the Bureau, quoted in 2008:

IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.

“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones….

“There is a debate in the climate community, after … close to 12 years of drought, whether this is something permanent…”

Here is the Bureau’s Jones in 2007:

As Jones wrote to the University of East Anglia the year before: “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…”

Here is the CSIRO, quoted in 2009:

A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change…

”It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,” said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal. ‘

‘In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”

Yet, with floods and rains and filling dams is so many states, an author of this latest report gets a very soft interview from the ABC’s Fran Kelly, who also fails to note an astonishing bit of cherry-picking that discredits the whole report.

The report’s authors present this alleged evidence of man-made climate change hurting us:

Observations also show that atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere have led to an average reduction in rainfall across parts of southern Australia.

In particular, May–July rainfall has reduced by around 19% since 1970 in the southwest of Australia. There has been a decline of around 11% since the mid-1990s in April–October rainfall in the continental southeast. Southeast Australia has had below-average rainfall in 16 of the April–October periods since 1997.

Note the strange decision, given our rainfall records go back more than a century, to pick apparently random and inconsistent dates – 1970 and 1997 and “mid 1990s” – as a base point from which to measure declines in rainfall. Note further that this decline is curiously only in patches of the country, and then only in – again – inconsistent periods, “May–July ” and “April–October”.

These are classic tell-tales of cherry picking – tricking to find some arbitrary period that can produce a statistical and scary decline which you can then present as troubling evidence that global warming is drying up our rains. (Even then, none of this comes even close to showing the “permanent” drought the agencies once claimed were leaving our cities desperately short of drinking water.)

This trickery becomes even clearer when you check the Bureau’s rainfall records for the whole past century or more. Amazingly, the impact of man-made warming becomes impossible to detect.

Here, again, is what the State of the Climate report says:

Observations also show that atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere have led to an average reduction in rainfall across parts of southern Australia.

But here is the Bureau’s own record of rainfall for southern Australia:

1.jpeg
Rain – southern Australia

Judged over the century, then, there is no evidence at all of rainfall decline.

Again, from the Bureau’s report:

In particular, May–July rainfall has reduced by around 19% since 1970 in the southwest of Australia.

Rainfall in the south-west is indeed declining, and has done for most of the past 120 years, the first half of which almost no scientist would blame on man’s emissions, which even the IPCC says only had a real effect after World War 11:

2.jpeg
Rain in south west

State of the Climate’s authors also claim that “Southeast Australia has had below-average rainfall in 16 of the April–October periods since 1997”.

But the longer record for the south-east again shows no historic change:

SA No historic change.jpeg
Rain in south east

Once again, a decline from the unusually wet 1970s, but little sign of change over more than a century.

And for the continent as a whole, more rain, not less – and certainly no permanent drought:

Aus rainfall.jpeg
Rain Australia

And as for the Murray Darling, that the Bureau once said was on “the verge of collapse”:

4.jpeg
Murray Darling

This is disgraceful. The Bureau and the CSIRO must explain why they have fed us such scares.

 

•••

CSIRO / BoM Related :

See Also :


Wash-out: Warmist Bureau’s Drought Prediction Fail

609203-readers-039-flood-photos

Floods Hit Victoria (Source : Herald Sun) 

Yet another alarmist scare out of the warmist Australian Bureau of Meteorology, wrecked by Mother Nature.

Either that or they put way too much ‘faith’ in their junk-in, junk-out computer models.

The litany of failed, alarmist predictions is why scientific organisations, such as the BoM, have – tragically – become almost the last places to hear the truth about global warming climate change.

The ‘Meteorological Office’ used to exist as a corrective to scaremongering, not any more.

•••

From Herald Sun

Floods? Near-record rainfall? I’d like the head of climate predictions at the Bureau of Meteorology to explain why his 2008 prediction of a “new climate” of drought turned out so wrong.

 

2008:

IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.

“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.

2016:

Winter was Australia’s second wettest on record – just missing out on a new high by a couple of millimetres, leaving many regions already sodden.

“It’s about as wet as it has been in the past 110 years [of records] across Australia,” David Jones, head of climate predictions at the Bureau of Meteorology, said.

•••

Related :


Real World Data Sinks The Great Global Warming Swindle

The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models
.
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful
.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University

•••

CGafZRMUcAAm1Y4

•••

via Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog :

Maybe, just maybe, it’s because their argument is unsound

Mark Steyn on the despair of the warmists:

The hysteria of Mann-style alarmism is going nowhere with the public, as one of the hysterics, Graeme Richardson, acknowledges here:


The sceptics and deniers have turned the 70 per cent-plus belief in climate change into a minority because no one has engaged them.

As my distinguished co-author on Climate Change: The Facts, Jo Nova, responds:

That’s right Graham, we unfunded bloggers and the few surviving skeptical scientists not evicted and blackballed from our universities (yet) have tricked 20% of the population because no one has put forward the climate change arguments except for: The Climate Commission, CSIRO, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, Royal Dutch Shell, GE, Panasonic, The ABC, The BBC, The Guardian, Fairfax, The Australian government, most universities, The EU, The UN, The World Bank, and the IMF.

Not to mention President Obama and the US Coast Guard, and George Clooney and his crappy floppo movie. Given that everyone from Hollywood to Washington to the Royal Society to half the churches and every elementary school in the western world is on Graeme’s side of the argument, their inability to sway public opinion must be ranked one of the most spectacular failures of the age – a veritable upside-down hockey stick.

UPDATE

Why did the head of the Bureau of Meteorology give a Senate committee information that was – in my opinion – highly misleading?

Jo Nova:

Maurice Newman, the chairman of the P.M’s business advisory council, daringly wrote in The Australian:

“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error.”

In Senate estimates, a Greens spokesperson asked Dr Rob Vertessy, Director of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) on his view of this. “That is incorrect,” he said…

If Maurice Newman was wrong, he was far too generous to the climate modelers. Instead of a 95% failure rate, it’s well up over 98%. Hans von Storch et al published a paper nearly two years ago comparing models and observations of a 15 year long pause. Statistically von Storch could find no justification for people saying the models matched the observations — there was a less than 2% chance of that. Last year Ross McKitrick estimated the pause was really 19 years long, so the odds are now less than 0.5%.  Newman was being kind, suggesting that 5% of models might be called “right”.

Atmospheric scientist John Christy contradicts our Bureau chief:



Speaking before Congress, Professor of Atmospheric Science John Christy illustrates the gross inaccuracy of the 102 climate model simulations relied upon by the United Nation’s in the latest IPCC AR5 climate change report. Professor Christy describes his chart: ‘That is the trend in the atmospheric temperature that has happened since 1979. That’s the target that you want to hit with your climate model. So, it’s like we give someone 102 bullets to shoot at that target… Not a single one of these climate model projections was able to hit the target.’

•••

See also :


More From Deniliquin

Real Science

Deniliquin has not only cooled since the 19th century, but the frequency of very hot days has also dropped dramatically.

ScreenHunter_7164 Feb. 15 07.52

BOM ignores all pre-1910 temperatures, because they don’t fit the global warming narrative.

ScreenHunter_7135 Feb. 14 07.45

ScreenHunter_7136 Feb. 14 07.48

View original post