BoM moves the Goal Posts

The BoM original 14 November media release "2005: Australia’s warmest year on record?" was explicit in that calendar 2005 is the subject.

See my critique using NASA GISS data in Coolwire 15 and on Jennifer Marohasy’s Blog 29 November.

This BoM drum beat lead to the 17 December article in The Australian, "Nation bakes in its hottest year", that I critiqued here on 18 Dec. as, "Dodgy BoM map.." etc. The BoM map in question was headlined, Above normal temperatures January 1-November 30, 2005.

So presumably the map could not have been produced until the afternoon of 30 November.

It is fascinating that on 2 December the BoM put out another media release headlined, "NT – Hottest 12-month period", informing us of Northern Territory warmth, "Near Average November Temperatures for the Territory but Warmest 12-Month Period Persists". Oddly enough, there were no other media releases for other States, for example Queensland, featuring "Highest on record" areas on the map in The Australian. Note that it only takes two weeks for their 14 November hype, "2005: Australia’s warmest year on record?", to collapse in a heap under the influence of, shock horror, "Near Average November Temperatures for the Territory".

When the BoM says on 2 December, "..Warmest 12-Month Period Persists", they shift the start of the measuring period from 1 January 2005 back to 1 December 2004. This is "moving the goal posts."

Is there no shame dampening what the BoM will do under the imperative to put out warming propaganda ?

This farrago of contradictions might be amusing if it were not costing taxpayers and diverting effort from more beneficial output such as timely storm warnings.

We await the end of year round of BoM media releases.

63 thoughts on “BoM moves the Goal Posts”

  1. Congratulations to all the GCM modelers and those that adhere to there products. After billions of dollars 10-15 years of concerted effort, they can hindcast 20th century global temperatures ‘reasonably well’ (whatever that means). Of course, if these models really do grasp the workings of the Earth’s Atmosphere and all the forcings involved, should they not be able to hindcast the climate for thousands of years? It seems quite obvious to me that a model that assumes that the change in CO2 is the main driver of global temperature change, will predict a stable climate from 150 years ago to 600,000 years ago, a prediction that is obviously not true. The conclusion is that the models are not accurate or viable for predicting future climate and that this ‘recent success’ is nothing more than curve fitting and ‘plugging in assumptions until you get the desired results’!

  2. Steve, Hailstones are liquid water? – oh solid water obviously – typo on my part. I see you are as expert in messenger shooting as Done and Ender. As for the solar stuff, well let’s wait and see.

  3. The curve fitting is abolutely wrong and illustrates you don’t know what the models do. These are full process simulation of physics not statistical regression models. The plugging in assumptions until you get results is utterly wrong and simply opiniionated nonsense. GCM modellers go to great lengths to check all sorts of processes in their work. They also are explicit in aspects of the models and processes within the models which are not well done or need more work. Models would not work thousands of years back unless you got the solar and orbital forcings correct. But it could be done. Solar radiation from either solar output or orbital position of the Earth is the main driver of global temperature not CO2, CO2 moderates climate on top of that. BUT Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming. There is also a history of people finding solar cycles which relate to climate – which upon greater statistical analysis are found to be bogus. The proof usually comes when future predictions fail. It is not possible to predict the future climate. We can only produce scenarios. Why – because we don’t know what the future CO2 composition of the atmosphere will be. Depends on actions of humanity. We also have empirical measurments of the greenhouse flux with pyranometers – see page 26 on this blog – just change the web page number on your address bar from 25 to 26. Philpona’s papers. P.S. No ice age soon – see Hollan and Berger’s papers at the bottom of:

  4. Louis – on Mars – there is a greenhouse effect – a very very small one. Despite there being more CO2 than on Earth there is little atmosphere. If you haven’t thought this through – you’re missing a very big point. And if solar output has not changed what would be perturbing a stable Martian climate?? The RC explanation is likely to be the correct one.

  5. Steve, The glossy 56 page A4 sized book "Climate Change 1995", The Science of Climate Change, published by the IPCC has NO mention of water vapour or the the role of same in the 6 page Summary for Policymakers. The first mention is in the Technical Summary on page 17 but there is no perspective on its importance. This is in stark contrast to another similar 1995 book, 100 A4 pages, Climate Change Sciences, Current Understanding and Uncertainty, this time published by the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. In the Executive Summary, very first bullet point, water vapour is listed first with other GHG’s. On page 13 a section headed "The Role of Water", mentions that water vapour is responsible for about 75% of the natural GH effect. A candour you will not see in IPCC publications. The IPCC from its inception always produced biased and unbalanced output for Policymakers and the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 which started us on the Kyoto road was handicapped by being run by people full of IPCC propaganda. And Steve, I did a while back post a reply to your first questions on RC in Dec.

  6. Au contraire ! I haven’t changed mind on anyting.

    It is yourself that needs to decide whether you are going to at least understand how the “greenhouse effect” is said to work before you invent your own versions. Louis you have been everywhere on this issue – to thye extreme – “there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas” which Ender has nailed you on; the radiation lost to space issue – which would mean the temperature would plummet to -18C. It gets cold in the outback but not that cold !! The average surface temperature would be -18°C without a greenhouse effect or 72°C with just the greenhouse effect and no convection, but in reality this temperature is closer to 15°C due to convective flow of heat energy within the atmosphere and partly above much of the thermal IR absorbence of the atmosphere.

    You’ve then run the old water vapour is dominant gas ruse, and the saturation argument.

    Then we have the Mars CO2 issue which I assume you have borrowed from Motl (a string theorist – and you have bagged string theorists !! hmmm.. ..). Although there may be more CO2 overall than Earth – Mars lacks virtually any atmosphere to warm up. You have also missed the fact that at least 50% of the re-radiation of any CO2 molecule on average will be downwards again. You have missed all these interplays. (or chosen to close your mind as it doesn’t suit).

    So you may think you’re playing the role of Galileo on this issue – but you may actually be playing the role of the persecutors?

    Would have thought an intelligent person would have at least made some attempt to find out what the other side were actually on about before blathering. I mean we don’t want anyone to think that you are either a kook or rabidly politically motivated would we.

    I notice no comment on Philpona’s good work which measures the greenhouse flux very close to what the theory suggests and other corroborating evidence. You said you wanted empircal evidence. Here it is. (other post #26).

    The first thing to make anyone suspicious is for a scientific argument to become political half way through the prose.

  7. Money quote:

    Steve- “It is not possible to predict the future climate.”

    Simulations of nonlinear systems involving positive feedback diverge exponantially from “reality”. I wouldn’t even trust the scenarios produced by such models. They might be useful for hypothesis forming, however.

  8. Annabelle, nobody claims the models are even close to perfected. In a sense, all they are really reliable for at the moment is projecting vulnerability, but even this is quite valuable. As for positive feedbacks, they are all around us, but fortunately the mere fact that one or more is involved in a given model doesn’t mean it’s a “runaway” since there are limiting factors. Even Venus, the classic example of a runaway greenhouse effect, ultimately reached equilibrium. Also, I’m no expert on the models, but I don’t think any of them contain feedbacks that diverge “exponentially.” Who was that quote from, BTW?

  9. Warwick, on the IPCC communications with respect to water vapor there was no reason to dwell on it since there is no policy that will control water vapor (a feedback) other than to change the forcings (GHGs etc.) that control it. As you note, the information was hardly "hidden." "Obscured due to lack of any relevance to policy" along with the rest of the details of the physics would probably be a more apt way to put it. For better or worse, most policy makers are never going to understand the details of global warming physics well enough to repeat it to someone else. The same is unfortunately true with regard to most aspects of public policy. If we want that to change we need to elect more wonks.

  10. Phil Done Says: "January 16th, 2006 at 6:27 pm The curve fitting is abolutely wrong and illustrates you don’t know what the models do. These are full process simulation of physics not statistical regression models. The …" So, Phil Done, the physics of the universe have been instantiated in a machine, and to that, written into a programme which consists of chains of deductive arguments, and lo, they have the universe running in comuter format. So, the chaotic universe is replicated. AGWer’s might as well revert to good old fashioned alchemy. Of course, if Done objects with, the qualification is `simulated’, …so.-least Done misses the objection, what on earth, in that case, does it mean to simulate the universe? Next, if Done were to reply a `simulation’ is an approximation, then the problem is worse , far worse – it entials omission of much which is fundamental and thus is fundamental to the generation of climate, which means, they are not emulating physics at all. Yet, that, not emulating physics is already given in the rubbish, the simulation of phyiscs in a computer. Next to the myopia Done shows in his incomprehension of what Louis and Warwick have stated, has stated, it seems Done blithely ignores, computers replicate nothing, instantiate nothing, and because of what a computer is, the universe cannot be replicated in a computer, right down to all the laws of the universe, and, it assumes, theory in physics is complete and, it is not.That is quite apart from, there is no theory of climate, and that there is not yet an exhaustive account of the generation of weather let alone climate, and Done believes a computer `model’ `simulates physics’. Done , each and every run of a `model’ is no more than output showing, the programmers have written a valid programme only and valid programme entails, to the one who runs it, garbage in and garbage out will run so long as the script is valid. That, Done, is all the AGWer modellers are doing, writing programmes and seeing if they run. Well, those training in computer learn to write valid script and, they do not have to run them for it to be true if they have written valid script. But good old real taxpayer has been burdened with the building of computers and programmers writing script so AGW `researchers’ can do no more than amuse themsleves with useless scripts. Done must be a joker to seriously believe what is nothing more than a very expensive indulgence is science and scienitific experiments. Just to check, the data generated each tiem a `model’ is run is no more than output of values which demonstrates the programme is valid. Big deal,gee whizz, stop the world AGWers can write computer programmes! Amazing, gob-stopping stuff and, wow and, woooooooooooooo.

  11. Dear Phil

    “Au contraire ! I haven’t changed mind on anyting.”

    Which means you do not think.

    Which is the problem the rest of us have with your posts – unthinking diatribes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>