Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Well we can actually compare Melbourne to Laverton, which is just a good 15 minute drive from the Melbourne site. Whilst we don't expect the two to follow suit exactly, with only a small driving distance between them we should expect only small white noise errors if there was no problem with urban warming.
Unfortunately this is not what we get. Starting from 1955, shown below is the difference between Melbourne and Laverton temperature anomalies for average temperature (average of max and min).
The rate of increase is obvious. IN fact it is increasing at more than 2 degrees every 100 years. The minimum temperature increase was even greater at 3 degrees per 100 years or at 3 times the supposed global mean increase due to global warming. The Urban Heat Island effect obviously has a major influence in the temperature data, so much so that at some stations it can increase it by up to 3 times he normal amount.
Whilst there is debate over to its use in global warming analysis. (this website say that it is not used, this article suggests that it is used in much research, and this Australian Bureau of Meteorology website suggests that it is used in temperature maps, as well as a personal email from the BOM that says that it does, and it is also included in the Australian temperature extreme analysis), there are some big applications in these findings.
Firstly, is suggests that the Urban Heat Island effect is real. This goes against research by Peterson (2003) who indicated that "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures.
Parker (2004) suggested that the Urban heat island effect didn't exist because calm nights were as warm and windy nights (huh???).
Even the IPCC (2007) concluded that
"the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation"
If this is the case, can you explain the above graph? And this one as well as shown on this website?
Granted of course, that this is an extreme case. The weather station might well have been plotted on a few squared of grass, but amongst cars, trams, concrete, street lights etc. Not all stations are like this. However whatts up with that suggests that this is far from a one off occurrence.
So if Melbourne's Urban Heat Island Effect makes a 2 degree increase in temperature per 100 years, and a 3 degree increase in minimum temperatures, then how much will a small urban effect make? Half a degree? One degree?
Either way, the IPCC is clearly only kidding themselves that the Urban Heat Island effect is insignificant. The graph above is significant at less than the 0.001 level of significance.
To the usual problems - that when the wind don’t blow, the power don’t flow - add the fact that the ones already installed at great expense aren’t producing as much power as promised.
From pages 30 and 33 we read that VENCorp has had to revise future summer wind generation from 24 per cent to 23 per cent of installed capacity, and winter wind generation even further down - from 27 per cent to just 19 per cent of capacity.
This is “based on the analysis of actual half-hourly wind generation during peak times”. Ugly, expensive and next to useless.
Friday, October 26, 2007
But the result? well with hurricane season ending Nov 30th, is looking well below normal. According to COAPS: “Unless a dramatic and perhaps historical flurry of activity occurs in the next 11 weeks (ACE is based on calendar year, not traditional June-November hurricane season) , 2007 will rank as a historically inactive Tropical Cyclone year for the entire Northern Hemisphere.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
But it wont stop there, at night, Victoria street and La Trobe street is lit up by street lights. Not country style street lights, but city street lights, so there is not a single section of the area under shade.
View the map here.
So how have the records gone for this station? You guessed it, increases in maximum temperature and minimum temperature, even increases before bitumen was invented. So surprises really, in fact temperatures at Midnight, 3am, 6am, 9a, Noon, 3pm, 6pm and 9pm have all seen increases.
No surprises really. With cars and concrete buzzing past during the night, and under constant heat lights at night, well, the conclusion answers itself.
And as for rainfall? well there's a reasonable chance that the surrounding sky scrapers eliminate some of this, and the last 10 years has seen decreases despite no significant difference. Ohh,and don't even bother getting meaningful readings about Sunshine duration or wind.
Well if the CO2 blanket was the major cause of global warming then we would see increased temperature, relatively constant throughout the day. Unfortunately this, as we have shown doesn't occur in Australia at night. However we have shown that maximum temperatures, just like temperatures at 9am, Noonand 3pm all have shown a significant increase in temperature. 6pm and 9pm failed to record a significant increase.
Has the maximum temperature increased at the same rate as temperatures at these times? Well if the sun was the major source of global warming, then unless the maximum occurred all the time at say, 3pm, then maximum temperatures should have increased at a greater rate than those at recorded specific times.
Shown below is the difference in monthly temperature anomalies of maximum temperature and 9am. As one can see, there doesn't seem to be much of a linear trend. A possible cyclic trend might exist, but there is not enough data t prove either way.
However as shown below the difference in monthly temperature anomalies of maximum temperature and Noon is starting to shape form. Whilst in more recent years (since around 1992) there has been no major difference, beforehand there was a significant increasing trend indicating that temperature anomalies at he maximum were increasing at a greater rate than temperatures at Noon.
Shown below are the differences in monthly temperature anomalies of maximum temperature and 3pm and 6pm.
The pattern is obvious. In fact maximum temperatures anomalies have been increasing with respect to 3pm temperatures at a rate of 0.0054 degrees per year or 0.34 degrees since 1943. And the increase compared to 6pm is at a rate of 0.0131 degrees per year or 0.83 degrees since 1943.
The graph of the different between maximum temperature and 9pm is shown below which shows a gradual but not not as significant trend.
So this tells us a few things. Firstly, the maximum temperature anomalies are increasing at a greater rate than temperatures at strict consistent times. Hence we are of more recent times getting more "spikes" around the maximum temperature during the day.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics would no doubt agree with this conclusion as they show that their amount of Warm Days has remained relatively steady bar an increase in the last 5 years.
It also means that using the variable maximum temperature over exaggerates the amount of warming that Australia has actually seen. A more accurate measure would be an average of all increases at each of the 8 constant times of the day/night.
But it also means something else, that temperatures are not increasing constantly throughout the day and night. We have shown earlier that temperatures at night are not increasing and have also suggested here that maximums are increasing at a greater rate over the years that constant times at Noon, 3pm and 6pm. Hence it seems that either the sun is a larger contributer to global warming, or that the CO2 greenhouse blanket is ineffective at night, and is only effective as the sun has a greater influence during the day.
Hence still, the reliance on the sun. But is there more evidence of sun caused global warming in the time based temperature anomalies? You bet. Next we will prove to you about the rate of change of temperature anomalies as we approach the heat of the day and move from it, and it is devastating evidence indeed.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
"About half of all tornadoes in Australia occur during May to October." (page 23)
My recommended rewording:
"About half of all tornadoes in Australia occur during May to October, as do almost half the months of the year"
Monday, October 22, 2007
Canadian mathematician and climate scientist Steve McIntyre has found another striking error in the academic work supporting the case for climate alarmism.
Recall, in August McIntyre found an error in the way NASA was collating the temperature records from 1200 North American monitoring stations operating since the 1870s. NASA admitted the error, acknowledging they had been overstating the warming in North America since 1930 by a factor of 1.75x. (We wrote about the incident here, here, here, and here.)
This week McIntyre got his hands on the source data cited in an influential 2003 paper claiming the Urban Heat Island effect not having an important impact on historical temperature measurements. The article suggestively titled, Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found, claimed:
Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures.
Using the same data (sent to him by the author Thomas Peterson) McIntyre this claim to be completely unsupported. Here’s McIntyre’s plot of data, separating urban and rural monitoring stations based on Peterson’s own definition (click to enlarge):
Its painfully obvious to the most casual observer that there’s a strong warming trend among urban stations, and none for the rural ones.
McIntyre cuts the data another way. Rather than using Peterson’s definition of what constitutes an urban station, he looks at stations in cities with NFL teams (he calls them ‘major cities’) versus everything else. Here’s the graph (click to enlarge):
2. Can you please explain the predictions of increased drought and flooding, coupled with a decrease in rainfall when you consider that the second half of the 20th century had a 9.5% increase in rainfall compared to the first half of the 20th century (an increase in every state), and that the number of very wet days and not significantly increased or decreased, neither has the number of days of no rainfall?
3. As Kerplunk puts it "If 'the science is settled' then why does the United Nations' IPCC need 17 climate models when just one should do?"
Friday, October 19, 2007
This will cause:
"increases in droughts, floods, fire, tropical cyclones and hail"
"large areas of mainland Australia are likely to have less soil moisture"
Expect heavier rainfall events, and the number people who will die every year over the age of 65 from heat waves will increase from 1000 (current) to 2300 to 2500 in 2030 to 4300-6300 in 2050. (or they could just buy air conditioners).
The murray darling basin had the driest September on record and they forecast rainfall in Australia to decline by at least 10%, especially in winter and spring.
And as their website says:
Since 1950, most of eastern and south-western Australia has experienced substantial rainfall declines. Across New South Wales and Queensland these rainfall trends partly reflect a very wet period around the 1950s, though recent years have been unusually dry. In contrast, north-west Australia has become wetter over this period, mostly during summer.
From 1950 to 2005, extreme daily rainfall intensity and frequency has increased in north-western and central Australia and over the western tablelands of New South Wales, but decreased in the south-east and south-west and along the central east coast.
Where to start! I have noted before that there is no evidence of increased drought, and there is no evidence of increased hail or very wet weather scenarios.
And increased cyclones? Nope, no evidence of that. If anything, cyclones are decreasing in Australia.
The Murray darling basin did have the driest September on record, but there is no evidence that we have a decreasing trend there. Long term trends suggest no evidence of decreasing rainfall.
I questioned Dr. Scott Power as to why the north west Australia has cooled down. He replied that it is due to increased cloud cover in that area, hence why it has seen more rain. Of course the reason south east Australia has warmed up is not due to less cloud cover (and less rain) but due to global warming.
I also asked him if under the theory of global warming, do we see temperatures constantly increasing throughout the day, in other words, are night time temperatures increasing at a similar rate to day time temperatures.
I expected an answer of yes, but he "correctly" pointed out that that night time temperatures are increasing at a greater rate (this mind you is due to analysis of the minimum temperatures which as we all know doesn't even occur a night). On questioning why this is, he said he didn't know, despite the fact he did a paper on it. He thinks it might have something to do with increased cloud cover, but he's not sure. Ahh, cloud cover!
But what Dr. Scott Power did mention on many times is the decreasing trend of rainfall since 1950, and because of this the expected continued decrease due to global warming.
I questioned this, and commented that rainfall was actually higher in the last 65 yeas than in the 50 before that. He agreed with me saying that they were very constant back then. A lot more variability now, but continued to say that we are seeing a decreasing trend since 1950.
So are we seeing a decreasing trend in rainfall in the last 50 years. Lets look at the stats:
My regression tells me in fact the complete opposite. Since 1950 Australia has seen an increase in rainfall at a rate of 0.79mm extra per year. Hence in 1950 we averaged around 456mm and then now averaging around 500mm, a 44mm increase since 1950.
So where is this decrease? Note the above is however not statistically significant (p = 0.3).
But is this Australia wide? Victoria is the only state to record a significant decrease in rainfall since 1950 (p=0.03), whilst South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory all record significant increases in rainfall. Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania all record decreases in rainfall, but it is not significant.
Keeping mind however, that all states, every single one has had on average 10% more rainfall from 1950 to 2006 than from 1900 to 1950.
So where are the decreases in rainfall? Seriously, where are they? And how on earth can one continue to predict decreasing rainfall, when Australia has had nothing but the opposite.
I do hope that someone answers my 3 questions to the CSIRO, which will be posted in the next post
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Apparently, global warming likes to increase rainfall in some places and decrease in others. Who knows why!
But I was strangely interested in why the website only mentions rainfall trends since 1950. Australia has great and accurate rainfall data going back to the start of the 20th century, so why not use these? I'll show you why.
Looking at rainfall patterns from 1900 to 1950 and since 1950 we come across some interesting trends as shown below:
State Av.Pre1950 Av.Post1950 %Increase
TOTAL 3813.3 4174.9 9.5%
NSW 481.2 559.2 16%
NT 486.1 553.0 14%
QLD 586.5 638.3 9%
SA 204.6 233.1 14%
TAS 1110.4 1174.5 6%
VIC 608.6 651.3 7%
WA 335.9 365.5 9%
In the last 57 years, every single state has seen an increase in rainfall compared to the 50 years before this. And Australia wide, we have had a 9.5% increase in rainfall.
Hence, if anything, global warming has meant that we are having increased rainfall in Australia. So does global warming cause more droughts, looks like the complete opposite.
But wait, critics (of the non-critical side) will argue that global warming causes more very heavy rains and more periods of no rain - hence greater rainfall in one particular time (more floods) and more droughts. This of course is not shown in the above table, but lets look at the ABOM's own website to see if this is happening:
This graph shows the number of very heavy precipitation days (mm>30):
Nope doesn't seem to any pattern there. And shown below is the number of consecutive dry days:
Damn! No pattern there either.
So there you have it. There is no evidence at all to suggest that global warming will increase droughts or flooding. But there is evidence that we could be getting more rain, and given the greater need for drinkable rain water...this surely is one major advantage of global warming.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Let me tell you why.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, on their website, love to look at climate extremes. Like how many very hot days have we had etc. All point to the obvious; that we are having more hot days and less cold ones, more hot nights and less cold ones - An obvious conclusion when considering the theory of Global Warming.
But lets concentrate on the nights. They claim that Australia has seen an increase in very hot nights, a veyr large increase in hot nights, whilst also having a decrease in cold nights, a decrease in frost nights (thank goodness - the farmers will be happy) and a decrease in cool nights.
But lets look at how they came to these graphs. This website shows their analysis, where you will notice that the above information is solely put together using the minimum temperature only.
We pointed out before that minimum temperatures in Australia have been increasing since the second world war, but we also showed that temperatures at Midnight, 3am and 6am have shown no statistically significant increase in temperature.
This is because the minimum temperature actually occurs usually around 15 to 60 minutes after sunrise. Thats right, the minimum temperature does not occur at night. Hence the minimum would be influenced by the sun, and is not a reliable statistic to measure overnight temperatures. It doesn't even occur at night.
But that doesn't stop the Australian Bureau of Meteorology from announcing increasing warm nights and decreasing cold nights based on the minimum temperature. Complete Incompetence indeed.
It is a shame that the ABOM cannot analyse their own data statistically well, because their collection methods are one of the best. Generally they get the CSIRO to do the analysis, and, well, we all know how good they are at doing statistical analysis too.
Incompetence or perhaps intolerance.
Some critics of Al Gore's award:
- Claude Allegre, a Frenchman who is both an esteemed scientist and a new socialist (and a new skeptic), calls the Friday Nobel announcement "a political gimmick"
- Klaus, Lomborg, Gray
- Richard Lindzen: the award shows that the issue is now about fashions and politics and not science
- Manchester Union Leader: the award is a fraud on the people
- William Gray: the theory behind the prize is ridiculous and in 10-15 years, everyone will know it
- Tehran Times: the award is an attack of old Europe against the Bush team
- Anthony Watts: there are emerging calls initiated in New Zealand to rescind Gore's Oscar etc. because of the inaccuracies in the movie
- Republican American: Gore is as much a liar as he was before
- Business and Media Institute: Gore won thanks to the hysteria in the media
Let us abolish the IPCC:
- Vincent Gray, a fresh co-winner of the Nobel peace prize, proposes to abolish the IPCC because the whole process is a swindle
- David Henderson: scientists are not in charge of the IPCC (Wall Street Journal)
Maestro has grave doubts about carbon trading:
- Alan Greenspan thinks that the cap-and-trade carbon market either destroys the economy or won't work
About Osama's motivation:
- Timothy Ball recommends to be skeptical about Kyoto because Osama bin Laden has correctly figured out that it could seriously hurt the West
Amazon shaman fights green colonialism:
- Davi Kopenawa, a shaman, visits Britain and blames the anti-greenhouse religion for sickness, depression, suicide, obesity and drug addiction of the indigenous people
- Colorado gets a foot of snow
Gore is jealous:
- Britney, OJ, Paris get more media attention than global warming (count news.google.com hits), a fact that drives the prophet up the wall
An update on the recent High Court ruling in Britain, via Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters:
Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods.
It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning, wouldn't you agree?
For those that haven't been following this case, a British truck driver filed a lawsuit  to prevent the airing of Gore's alarmist detritus in England's public schools.
According to  the website of the political party the plaintiff, Stewart Dimmock, belongs to (ecstatic emphasis added throughout, h/t Marc Morano):
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?
In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can make similar determinations.
- The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
- The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
- The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
- The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
- The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
- The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
- The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
- The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
- The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
- The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
- The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
Of course, even if one could find such an impartial jurist, our media wouldn't find it newsworthy, would they?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the con clusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon
use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge....
Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood… Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use (7) does not correlate… There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape.
But as World Climate report shows, America too is having certain parts with increased rainfall and others with less rainfall. Must be due to global warming right? Well they also show that the last 50 year of rainfall in Canada has been greater than the 50 before that.
Strangely enough however, the BOM come back and suggest that the our current lack of rain [(despite non significance)] is caused not by warming, but by cooling:
Australia’s climate may continue, at least in the short term, to be influenced by the unusual state of the oceans to the north, and particularly northwest, of the continent. These have been cooling since June when, historically, they would have been expected to warm as the La Niña evolved in the Pacific. These cooler than normal waters inhibit the formation of northwest cloudbands, which are a major source of winter and spring rain for central and southeastern Australia during La Niña years.
Hmm..but well maybe we should eat more kangaroo to decrease global warming. But no need to go full on in the meat race, as last month was the 7th coolest month this century.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The consulting firm Digital CEnergy, which prepared the report for the Government's Australian Greenhouse Office, also recommends a second tier of even tougher restrictions that would then ban almost all current LCD models from the market in April 2011.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
However we also found that temperatures at Midnight, 3am and 6am have not seen any significant increases or decreases in temperature over the same time period. This is quite strange, as it has long been thought that the minimum temperature is a good representation of overnight temperatures. Obviously with different trends occurring in each case, we suggest that it is not. However, because no scientific literature has even bothered to look at time based temperature, this type of discovery goes unnoticed in the science world, and we still see dozens of studies looking at the consequences of night time warming.
So why is this occurring? Well lets have a look at the differences between the minimum temperature and temperature anomalies at 3am and 6am, which is shown in the graph below.
The graph above shows an obvious increasing, and statistically significant trend. Minimum temperature anomalies from the second world war up until now have been increasing at a greater rate than temperatures at 3am and 6am. If the minimum temperature were to be a good representation of overnight temperatures then we would expect no trends in the data, and the average "bar" to be around zero.
I've included two parabolic trend lines to highlight the differences between the two variables. It would seem that 6am anomalies closer resemble minimum temperature anomalies. This makes sense, as the minimum temperature generally occurs closer to 6am than 3am. In fact, in about the last 10 years, there has been no major trend between 6am and minimum temperature anomalies.
It is no surprise then that we have seen in the last 10 years, and indeed since 1973, no significant increase in minimum temperature.
Hence in more recent times, the minimum has been a reasonable variable to measure overnight temperature (despite being about 0.05 degrees Celsius above temperatures at 3am and 6am), but was a poor measure of overnight temperature before 1975.
Even the ABOM agrees with us here (aside from other irregularities), in that minimum temperatures have not seen any increase since 1973.
As shown on Andrew Bolts forum, Bob Forster, suggested the following:
If you ignore the distraction of the bars for individual years, and just look at the 5-year running mean, you will discover that most of the warming was in a single step-change in the latter half of the 1970s.
That jump in Australian average temperature correlates with the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/1977. The Shift marks a change from Pacific Decadal Oscillation cool phase to warm phase – thus reversing a cool shift in the early 1940s. This 76/7 climatic step-change correlates with an abrupt reduction in the upwelling quantity of cold deep water in the equatorial eastern Pacific. Put another way – before the shift there was a preponderance of La Niña conditions, and after it El Niño dominated. Change in upwelling quantity on this scale (it varies a lot - but say, from about 26 Sverdrups before the Shift to about 18 Sv after) is an inertial event of huge magnitude. I don’t see how human-caused CO2 emissions could have done that.
An interesting theory, one that I believe will be heavily scrutinized no doubt. But whatever the reason we can conclude that the weather and temperature has been changing since the second world war, and it has not been just a gradual increase in temperature as global warming alarmists cause.
Temperatures at night have not been increasing, and the minimum temperature has not increased in the last 30 years, a period where is more closely resembles overnight temperatures.
And what of differences in temperature anomalies between other times? We'll look at them next.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
It predicts lower rainfall, but even by their own Bureau of Meteorology website, this hasn't occurred.
It suggests we will have less spring and winter rainfall, with drops of up to 40 per cent in some southern parts of Australia by 2070. But once again by the Bureau's own website spring rainfall and winter rainfall have shown no decrease at all. Even in the much talked about southeastern Australia there has been no significant decrease in annual rainfall as well as spring and winter rainfalls.
Did the Bureau of Meteorology actually check their own statistics before they issued such a report?
What is interesting is the actual website set up by the two teams, Climate Change in Australia.
Have a look at the observed changes. They state that we have seen significant increases in temperature at both day and night, however my own analysis of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's data proves that Australia has not seen any night temperature increase at all.
The website also claims that south western Australia is becoming dryer as is New South Wales and Queensland, however northern Australia has seen an increase.
So global warming increases certain parts of Australia's rainfall and decreases others? What an evil deceptive thing this global warming is. It is true that south western Australia has seen a decrease in rainfall, but southern Australia has seen a slight increase, and northern Australia as publicised has increased as well. Geez, even the much talked about Murray Darling Basin has seen no significant increase or decrease in rainfall. Who would have thought that if you read the papers!
So according to the climate change in Australia website, global warming makes some places wetter and other places less wet. Just what those places are, and more importantly why, no-one knows.
I might be pushing some straws here, but don't you think there is a slight chance, just a slight one, that these changes (some up ,some down) we are seeing is due to natural variation? Not one single honest statistician could say otherwise. This is a prime example of finding pattens in randomness.
The CSIRO and BOM should be shamed for such terrible inexcusable analysis of their own data.
This, unfortunately, is completely outrageous.