Comments on: BoM forecast dry in Queensland contradicts their 23 April modelled rainfall Outlook

By: peter colenso

peter colenso — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 01:21:05 +0000

Weather science has overlooked the size of water in its 3 states, and this is very important when it comes to lowering pressure.

waters volume in its 3 states
ice – 1.1 water – 1 water vapour – 1670

When water vapour condenses to 1670 times its former size it lowers the pressure, somehow weather science has overlooked this.

Gases in air at 99% humdity

nitrgen – 76%
oxygen – 19%
water vapour – 4%
all other gases- 1%

peter colenso

By: WSH

WSH — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:00:10 +0000

Joshua, I am always glad for fair comment on what I write but misleading claims and pejorative terms are not welcome.
There is nothing “wrong” in any way about what I have written and drawn attention to. BoM people are behind all of these articles that emerged within a few days in early May, (there were many other clone articles at that time too).
Re your “firstly”, Brad Murphy is from the BoM and he is not just talking about far NQ and the northern wet season. The flooding the article talks about was not in far NQ.
The drought he refers to is likewise not in far NQ, check the drought maps on the BoM website and only the recent 3 month Autumn period has even a minority of areas of drought in the wet tropics.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi?map=contours&variable=drought&area=aus&period=3month®ion=aus&time=latest
If Brad Murphy was not happy about the “No hope” quote, I am sure the BoM media people could take it up with the ABC. In my opinion the ABC and BoM would be “hand in glove” in the generating of these articles.
Re your “secondly”, in the second article the BoM is clearly one of the “authorities” the journalist quotes, I mean what other “authorities” are there in Australia on rainfall ? In the case of the SE Qld water authorities, I never see any evidence that they take any position contrary to the BoM, they all sing from the same song sheet. However the journalist has mis-reported the cyclone number of 12 as being for Qld. If you check the late 2007 BoM media releases re the 2007/2008 cyclone season for WA and NT you find WA talks about plus 5, the NT talks about plus 3 and Qld equivocates about 3. Adding all that up comes to about 12 cyclones predicted for Australia. But cyclones are nothing to do with my post.
Re your “thirdly”, a BoM spokesperson is quoted all through the article, if the BoM is not happy with the headline, the BoM has the muscle to take the issue up with the Canberra Times.

Re your next point, “above average rain would be needed to remove long term deficits” issue. That is a BoM position not mine.
I am saying, there would be many past periods, say first half of the 20C when so called “rain deficits” in drought periods were never made up. get it now ?
I am saying it is delusional for the BoM to be pushing this notion of a past deficit that needs paying back, eg “Several years of above average rainfall are required to remove the very long-term deficits.”
It would be more productive for Australia if the BoM spoke in terms such as, “the dryer period in Australia post 2002 is typified by similar rainfall seen in the decades pre-1950 and we are probably seeing long term rain cycles the reasons for which are poorly understood”.
But it can not do that, being locked into the Greenhouse paradigm.

If I was a farmer waiting to get a crop in, I would ignore twaddle about “long term deficits” and make use of useful rain when it falls.
Finally, I think if you examine that Outlook map for May-June_july, every INCH of Qld is slated for above average rain. The white areas in the far north are the 50-55% zone.
It is a waste of time you or the BoM trying to make the point that these maps do not represent forecasts or predictions. That is how the average punter would view them.

By: Joshua Matthew

Joshua Matthew — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:22:25 +0000

That post is so wrong its funny – I think I might use it in a few presentations for a laugh.

Firstly – In the first article no BoM forecaster is quoted as saying “no hope”. The climatologist quite correctly notes that most rainfall occurs in the wet season – so even if above average rainfall does occur – its not likely to end the drought.
Secondly – The second article does not reference BoM at all. I’m pretty sure the BoM did not forecast 12 cyclones!
Thirdly – There is no quote from BoM saying “Hopes of drought breaking rain fall” – only that La Nina appears to be over.

I couldn’t see you point about “above average rain would be needed to remove long term deficits” – what is wrong with simple mathematics?

Additionally the outlook isn’t above for above average rain for all of Queensland (note to Warwick – check glasses before commenting). And its not a forecast of above average rain – its only that the odds are greater than above average rain will fall.

You do your other arguments no service by dishing up this tripe! Thanks, though, for a great laugh.

By: Rod

Rod — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 04:51:54 +0000

How much Co2 will it take to be dangerous in the atmosphere? I would first suggest that a visit to a greenhouse will show that the ideal level of Co2 is 1000mm is ideal for plant growth and they still have to spend a lot of money on keeping the greenhouse warm at night when it cools. There have been times in earths history when the level of Co2 was 20 times of todays level and all life thrived and the earth was not overheated as a result. No serious scientist can make a link to increased warming due to Co2. Ice core data has showen that increased Co2 levels always follows increases in temperature by 800 to 1000 years. Also Al Gore is getting very rich from selling carbon credits through his firm Generation Investment Management. He has collected over 5 billion dollars so far and his investment managers are saying they cannot find places to invest the money fast enough.