"The ad was just the latest indication that WA is at last waking up to its perilous situation as climate change kicks in."

ah ha, so previously, the climate didn't change? Hysterical exaggeration, how unusual! The climate is only changing now, it's "kicking in!" Doom!

Now for some Climate Astrology "We can’t say for sure that the storm was caused by climate change, but the increasingly weird weather WA is experiencing fits the general predictions by climate scientists."

So Climate Change, the new change that is, not the type that has been going on forever, is now responsible for storms, no storms, heat, cold, hurricanes in the US (oh wait, no hurricane landfall for 3 years ..huh?)

In fact Climate Scientists predict every form of weather, mass extinctions, increased growth, warmer and cooler oceans, more and less antarctic ice, you name it and you can find a climate prediction that fits, just like astrology.

That's probably why more and more people just turn off when climate change is mentioned, there appears to be less science and more hysteria daily.

The bottom line, is we have to adapt and stop this silly nonsense of trying to "stop climate change", that's like trying to stop tectonic plate movement, it's a folly and no one really believes it - what we do believe is that eco types want to redistribute wealth, and stop affluence, no thanks.

Summer must be coming. I feel for the pro-climate change lobby as they have been copping some stick but this summer they are going to get some help from the media.

Due to the media focus on conflict, impact and stories that are unusual, every time there's a heat wave, tennis ball sized hail stones, floods, scorpions rising from the earth - it's climate change.

Now one of the problems with the media is that they don't actually investigate the science (pro or con). They report the hysteria. This doesn't serve either side of the debate.

This summer the high temperatures and the fact that some older people and babies will die, will be put down to climate change - not any other factors such as not drinking enough water or not turning the air con on - but climate change.

I think even the climate changers think that's odd.

Here we go. The alarmist can't talk about Europe or Sydney or Melbourne. Any statistics yet on how many people are dying in Britain due to the earliest and coldest start to winter ever in some parts? How desperate they are to find somewhere in the world that has had a dry spell. Even Adelaide's dams are in a healthy condition. Talk about selective manipulation of facts. And to call this science!

< The Water Corporation pointed out that this situation is absolutely dire, “far worse than anything (it) could have predicted in its 50-year ‘Water Forever’ plan”. >

In its ads the Water Corp pointed out the < need for householders to cut water use >, but has it even remotely suggested that the rate of population growth needs to be wound back?

Apparently not. It is apparently appropriate for all users to further and further reduce their usage, while the nutcase of a government continues to emplace ever-more users into water-stressed areas!

Talk about utter madness!!

There may or may not be a connection between the WA water crisis and climate change, but there sure as hell is a powerful connection between the water issue and the insanity of rapid continuous rapid growth.

THAT is surely the primary factor, which needs to be addressed with great urgency.

< There are no signs that the Barnett Government has much on their minds other than maximizing the minerals and energy boom. >

Yep.

Good article Peter.

Following the criteria advanced by Peter McMahon we have a new definition of climate change (aka anthropogenic global warming) - namely any extreme weather event occurring in the Perth region.
Forget the rest of the world, a cold snap in Northern Europe is but a weather anomaly and therefore of no consequence. Professor Carter and others have pointed out that climate, like plate tectonics is always in a state of flux. Yes, humans do modify climate to a certain extent, for instance the heat islands effect. In theory a yellow corn field should absorb less heat then a dark green bush leading to local cooling.
All this is a long way from proving that the industrial emission of carbon dioxide is the principal driver of the global climate. Of course radiative effects from atmospheric gases are real, but this does not imply that that they are sole or main climate forcing factor.
In any case heat is distributed on earth by convective forces in the atmosphere and in the oceans which as far as I am aware are not satisfactorily factored into climate models. Lastly remember that the earth (especial the oceans) have a large heat capacity which must buffer any short term variations in the energy balance between the earth and outer space

"We can’t say for sure that the storm was caused by climate change"
-Peter McMahon

So don't.

Perhaps Peter hasn't noticed, or has consciously kept his mind averted from, the very cool, wet, but virtually storm free spring the east has experienced.

Hell, there's even water running down the Darling, reaching the south coast.

No of course he wouldn't want to notice that, all that water is not bad news.

Anti-green, you acknowledge that: << humans do modify climate to a certain extent, for instance the heat islands effect. In theory a yellow corn field should absorb less heat then a dark green bush leading to local cooling. >>

So, if you can see that significant anthropogenic changes do occur, even on a very small ‘corn field’ scale, then why are you so adamant that AGW doesn’t exist on the massive scale of vastly cleared landscapes and released fossil carbon?

It doesn’t add up.

<< All this is a long way from proving that the industrial emission of carbon dioxide is the principal driver of the global climate. >>

It isn’t really, you know. But who has to prove anything? The evidence is there that AGW is probably real and very significant. That should be good enough for us to implement policies worldwide in the interests of erring on the side of caution. We don’t have to and most definitely shouldn’t wait for irrefutable proof.

However, this is really as aside to the WA water crisis. I think that climate change is the wrong thing to concentrate on here. Continuous rapid population growth is the primary concern.

WA, or southwest WA at least, should become a stable-population steady-state region. The current water situation, and just plain commonsense, tells us that this should happen… with urgency!

Got to say, Ludwig, that here in south-west WA it was the strangest winter I've ever experienced. Day upon day of cold sunny days with clear blue skies...it really was very unusual.

Another in McMahon's long list of second-rate propaganda articles. He's been out of his depth since he stopped driving tractors.

Perth has hot weather and that's proof of globacl warming,he says. Pathetic.

Ludwig
In response to your post:
1. Assigning causation is a major problem in science. It has been so at least from the time of David Hume. The late Sir Austin Bradford Hill laid down some criteria in the year 1965 to the Royal Society of Medicine. A detailed summary can be obtained at the following site- this is not a copy of the original paper.

www.drabruzzi.com/hills_criteria_of_causation.htm

In the final analysis assignment of causation depends on “scientific judgment.”

2. The destructive energy released in certain weather events is orders of magnitude greater than any human activity. I understand for instance that the energy dissipated in a grade 5 cyclone is orders of magnitude greater than that released say in an atomic bomb.

Hold press - localised regional weather event proves climate doomists right!

Yes, thats right - a cold, wet winter and spring in Victoria, Australia has finally given advocates of Global Cooling (~1975) cause to claim victory over the dirty, scum sucking sceptical pollution-funded lobby. Spokesman Meter McPhahon was seen to be dancing in the streets, singing "We were right! We were right!", at least until he had to stop to find his slippers and put his tracksuit pants back on.

Hey Peter

WARMERLAND BLUES

It is shocking to see such stuff coming from a member of the Academy. So it goes in the crazy world of Warmerland.

You claim: "the increasingly weird weather WA is expereincing fits the general predictions by climate scientists."

Nothing could be further from the truth. There are no established laws of climate change, nor will there ever be such laws. It's irreducibly complex. There can, therefore, be no genuine predictions - merely guesstimates.

Once upon a time, folk attributed such phenomena to either (i) acts of God or (ii) the work of the Devil, depending on whether they were considered beneficial or malevolent events.

Fortunately, we have moved on from such primitive beliefs, where they projected their fears and anxieties about the future onto Nature. We have instead alarmist climate astrologers (with their obscenely expensive supercomputers) and moralising AGW evangelists, who attribute the cause of all our - present and future - woes to "climate change".

This expression has morphed from a descriptive word about what the climate has done ever since the Earth acquired an atmosphere - namely CHANGE - to alarmist code for something bad that is happening or about to happen - and that is invariably OUR FAULT.

Peter, if your still have an open mind on this issue, and can stand a tussle with what climatologist Judith Curry calls "the uncertainty monster", go to www.judithcurry.com and check out OVERCONFIDENCE IN IPCC'S DETECTION AND ATTRIBUTION: part III.

Alice (in Warmerland)

ALICE'S FIRST LAW: "Whenever scientists are funded from the public purse to study any phenomenon - but especially climate - it always increases in the worst possible direction."

OK for those who are genuinely interested:
Yes the models do include convection and ocean/atmosphere coupling. they model it accurately enough to reproduces the main climate driving structures in the oceans such as the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ), the InterTropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) as well as the basic Walker Circulation that conveys heat from tropics to poles. What they cannot do very well is handle areas smaller than a few square kilometres...more computer grunt for that.

They wouldn't be "modelling" the atmosphere if these basic features were not reproduced. These models also reproduce the ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) oscillations that occur pseudo-randomly (3-8 year cycles) as well as Indian Ocean Dipole, the Monsoon and several other important climate drivers.

Unlike economic "models", there is only known, proven mathematics that is based on physics...no dodgy non-physical relations are included. Of the 40 or so Climate models, most are assessed based on the 1850 - 1990 period and only if they model the past reasonably well are they used to "predict" the future. Of the future model runs, several related models are run several times with minor differences in initial conditions: Only effects that are consistently reproduced are said to be "predictions" of the model. All the uncertain, but possible extremes are discarded or put into the "pending" category.
Climate modelling is *Very* conservative! Especially compared to economic or social "modelling" which bears very, very little resemblance.

There was a quote in "Jurassic Park" along the lines of "Global Warming could bring on the next ice age"...via the shutting down of the "conveyer belt" currents that make Europe warm. I guess the concept that "warming" may drive the heat cycle faster, thus cooling areas adjacent to the poles, is just too complex for the basic Cost-Gain mindset! (but I hope some of you see that the world is not as simple as our lounge room heaters!)

Funny how any predictions are seen as "alarmist" yet when they come true they are "irrelevant". I can't wait for the wails of "they should have done something" when the really alarming stuff starts happening!

Akice writes

'Once upon a time, folk attributed such phenomena to either (i) acts of God or (ii) the work of the Devil, depending on whether they were considered beneficial or malevolent events'

In actual fact I am sure God is having a good laugh at the arrogance of man who continue to think they know what is going on despite their failed prophecies time and time again.

ozandy "I can't wait for the wails of "they should have done something" when the really alarming stuff starts happening!

I can't wait for the wails of the alarmists when we start putting them in jails for false prophesy over AGW when really they are just nasty people hating eco nuts, who, "despite an estimated spend of more than £64billion since 1990 looking for a human global temperature signal, assessed against geological reality, no compelling empirical evidence yet exists for a measurable, let alone worrisome, human impact on global average temperature."

but that's just me ..

ozandy "Funny how any predictions are seen as "alarmist" yet when they come true they are "irrelevant""

So tell us what cataclysms have been predicted that have come true, oh seer of the future?

Please don't come the raw climate astrologer and say you predicted .. "weather stuff", and lo, it happened .. come on, some big event please .. or STFU (Or like the UK Met, mild winter, and got the opposite is more like it)

Hey, ozandy, why not predict, right here on OLO, an event, say in the next year and we'll see if it happens? A biggie, attributable to nothing but AGW .. should be easy, with that future predicting climate modeling stuff .. put up, or admit you can't tell the future and it's got as much credibility as astrology .. vague at best, dangerous at worst.

I'm one of those wise people who state that "I know that I don't know"
when it comes to climate change etc.

There is no doubt that we've had a shocking year this year. We did
too, in 1914.

The explanations I've read by Wenju Cai, actually sound quite
plausible, given the little bit that I understand about weather
systems. So CSIRO might be onto something.

The most useful thing that CSIRO could do, is understand weather
systems enough, to give us some reasonably accurate forecasts of
what is going to happen, a few months in advance. They can't do that
yet. Agriculture etc, could adapt.

As to development in WA, the state is populated at a little over 2
people per square km, hardly overpopulation. It also produces 50%
of Australia's export wealth, so without developments here, the
rest of you would be back to grass skirts.

Lastly, even if every single West Australian went back to hunter
gathering tomorrow, it would not affect global climate. For the
problem remains the massive hoards of people in the Northern
hemisphere. Our few people here represent no more then 8 days of
humans breeding extra mouths. We are totally insignificant and
feelgood exercises are not going to change that.

The not-alarmed-ists have a wonderful refuge here in OLO. I'm starting to see their pattern of thinking. For example if eastern Australia is drought stricken and WA is OK then on average everything is fine. Perhaps we can all live in caravans and relocate from west to east or vice versa according to preference. That includes wheat farmers.

Sure it was -17C in Wales, UK last week. It was also an unprecedented 45C in Los Angeles, USA in September. The point is not only that the average temperature is inching up slowly but the extremes appear to be widening. How about explaining that to us without getting abusive.

<< Assigning causation is a major problem in science. >>

Abslutely right, anti-green. Not least in something as complex as climate change.

So as I keep saying; we should definitely not be waiting for proof, but should be doing as much as we can now to counter AGW, or the mooted effects of AGW, or the possibility of AGW.

All skeptics should agree with this. Only ardent denialists need not agree.

But then, just as there are great problems in proving that AGW is real, the same applies for it not being real. So, no one can in their right mind assert that it is not real. No one, who wants to be taken seriously, can be a denialist.

Even those who feel that it is very unlikely for AGW to be real or significant should think of themsleves as sceptics, and should follow the err-on-the-side-of-caution line by doing what we can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Taswegian "Perhaps we can all live in caravans and relocate from west to east or vice versa according to preference"

now you're talking good sense, it's called adapting .. and it's what we should do - people don't live in extreme heat or cold, the ones who want to live near the extremes, have chosen that .. fine, good for them

the people that worry me are the ones who say, well the climate is changing and I don't like it, so rather than adapting, I want the government to stop the changing .. talk about denial!

We can no more stop the climate changing than stop tectonic plate movement, but that doesn't stop folks trying to p*ss money, not theirs usually, on hair brained schemes to change the climate .. oh, unless it means something else they don't like .. like nuclear power.

what abuse?

Ludwig
I do not consider the so-called precautionary principal (PC) as a proper guide for decision making. Briefly you predict a catastrophic climate change from an increased increment of atmospheric CO2. This may be a true predication, much but more likely it is a false predication or false positive result (FP).
Now PC demands that we cannot wait to find out if we have a FP; or “waste time” on further enquiry. It is claimed that the predication if true will be catastrophic. Therefore no matter what the cost, no matter how ineffective will be the possible preventive measures; all steps must be taken to avert the remote possibility of catastrophe.
Now I would argue that the resources you would throw at a FP result can be put to better use in other areas. In reality it is less than certain that there would be catastrophic climate effects. Indeed if I am wrong there is no way of knowing what will be the manifestation of the putative catastrophe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
An example of a FP prediction from Andrew Bolt’s Blog 17th Nov.
“The United Nations University’s warning in 2005:
Amid predictions that by 2010 the world will need to cope with as many as 50 million people escaping the effects of creeping environmental deterioration, United Nations University experts say the international community urgently needs to define, recognize and extend support to this new category of ‘refugee’.
Anyone seen those 50 million environmental refugees? Or was this just one more outrageous scare by alarmists who should be held to account?”

Hay Ozandy, remember the warmest chant in 2000 in the UK. It goes something like, "It ain't gunar snow no more no more". The CRU people said it was because of global warming, or some such.

Guess what? It's now snowing like crazy, year after year, & what do the folk at the CRU say? It's because of global warming.

Just how stupid do they, & you think we are? Don't answer that, you may incriminate yourself.

Taswegian,

According to Wikipedia,

"Death Valley, a desert with large expanses below sea level, is considered the hottest location in North America; the highest temperature in the Western Hemisphere, 134 °F (57 °C), was recorded there on July 10, 1913."

1913: was that during an earlier AGW period ?

The presupposition that Australia shouldn't have extreme weather events is bizarre. Wow huge hailstones! Never seen that before. Must be climate change! And we are paying this man good money to maintain this flimsy rhetoric.

Australia has always been a land of "drought and flooding rains" well before CO2 emissions could have even contributed. Just ask Dorothea Mackellar.

The South-West of WA has certainly dried, but it’s not at all clear that this is caused by anthropogenic global warming. Land clearance, ocean currents and natural variability may be at least as significant.

Even if AGW is the cause, the causal link between greenhouse gas emissions in WA and temperatures or rainfall in WA is zero. Global warming is a global issue driven by global emissions and needing, ultimately, a global solution. The idea that we can solve WA’s water problem by reducing WA’s emissions is ridiculous.

In this context, WA’s natural gas developments are part of the solution, not part of the problem. It is widely recognised that natural gas is an important transition fuel as the world economy moves away from highly emissions intensive energy sources towards renewables. By substituting natural gas for coal in Asia’s power stations, WA’s gas exports will reduce global emissions, even though localised emissions will increase because CO2 is emitted in the gas production process. It is frankly absurd to argue that WA should not develop its gas reserves because it will emit CO2 in gas production, when overall that gas will contributed to lower global emissions by replacing coal.

2010 is on track to be Hobart's hottest on record.

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/12/02/190441_tasmania-news.html

Just saying.

<< … WA’s natural gas developments are part of the solution, not part of the problem. >>

I’m not sure about that Rhian

<< By substituting natural gas for coal in Asia’s power stations, WA’s gas exports will reduce global emissions >>

I wonder to what extent gas is replacing coal and to what extent is just more fossil fuel consumption on top of coal?

Loudmouth that's OK it was hot in Death Valley in 1913. It's just that more recently the scatter plot of temperature tends to be clustered at the high end. The temps as not quite as high but there are more of them.

Rhian the deal should be that Asians have to dynamite coal plants before they get any Australian LNG. At best gas fired electricity will save 55% of the CO2 of crushed black coal. What happens if we decide we want 80% less CO2? What happens when like the UK we no longer have enough gas to export?

It seems the author is picking on one Australian state to attack a global problem - one has to ask, why?

Ozandy - nitpick: your post reads as if you are confusing Hadley and Walker Circulation cells. I'm sure it is not intended.

Thanks Mark

A quote from the link.
'The above-average temperatures are set to continue into the first week of summer, with forecast tops mostly in the low 20s.'

I would be hoping against hope that gw would hurry up with maximums in the low 20's in summer. Who would choose to live in such a cold place.

not only is the quango of cli*mate change a lie
lets look at the gifting of billions of solar cells
to individuals...for nothing..

*yet still sold to us..*as infastructure

infastructure..NOW OWNED..
by those..with nice new solar cells on their*roof's

not us SUCKERS..paying for it ALL

look at ya electicity BILL
i cop a minimum cost..for off peak power..of 15 bucks 60 cents
also a service TO properrty charge of 22.41

yet these bludgers..
get 8000 dollars of FREE INFASTRUCTURE..THEY OWN*
free and clear...and dont EVER have to pay for*

then get access to our grid at night
[offest by that they put in at night
but im paying..their acces..and free gift's

SO ARE YOU..!

for what..so industry can GEAR UP..[producing much more co2]
building "infastructure"..
that will wear-out..in less than 20/30..years

talk about mad..[insane]...we still need that OVERNIGHT infastructure
run on coal...but those in the know..get their free lunch..and we get acces fees

WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR..

my bill has more than half its componant...
PAYING FOR THE BIG USERS...

cutting their costs
to get a free lunch..by doubling the cost of mine

how long this insanity of gift giving.[built on a lie
going to go on?

will we ever get those who got free solar
to pay-back..the "infastructure"..they get for mothing
that is costing us all the earth...bah

then they add on gst

Ozandy, since you raise the issue of modelling, take a look at the comparison of model retrodiction with actual temperature measures by Willis Eschenbach at:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/02/testing-testing-is-this-model-powered-up/#more-28755

"The overall conclusion from looking at how the models stand, move, and turn is that the models give results that are quite different from the observational data. None of the models were within all three 95% confidence intervals (median and two quartiles) of all of the data (surface temperatures ST, change in surface temps &#8710;ST, and acceleration in surface temps &#8710;&#8710;ST). UKMO and M_medres were within 95% confidence intervals for two of the three datasets.

A number of the models show results which are way too large, entirely outside the historical range of the observational data. Others show results that are much less than the range of observational data. Most show results which have a very different distribution from the observations."

He even provides his data, without being badgered by FOI requests or anything. How unusual!

To help us along in our understanding of so much conflicting data, Ozandy, could you please expand a little on this statement of yours.

>>These models also reproduce the ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) oscillations that occur pseudo-randomly (3-8 year cycles) as well as Indian Ocean Dipole, the Monsoon and several other important climate drivers.<<

Are these in fact "climate drivers" or "weather drivers"?

The weather here in NSW is wet and cold at the moment, due - I believe - to the operation of La Nina.

If La Nina is a climate driver, rather than a weather driver, how much has it changed over the years in which it has been observed?

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ninacomp.shtml

Because so far, so familiar.

Ive been watching rainfall models, now available widely especially for NSW and Victoria, and have been amazed at how far out they have been over periods of one to four days. If computer models get it wrong in that tiny timespan, how is it that we are supposed to have absolute faith in models describing climate 100 years hence?

The fact that WA is sparsely populated yet still suffers water shortages is a testament to poor planning. The majority of WA's population lives in Perth and the SW. The northern part of the state, where few people live, has plenty of water. It's a bit rich blaming Perth planning on Colin Barnett- Labor had plenty of time to put proper planning in place for the expected population increase, which ocurred during their time in office. The stituation was exactly the same in SE Queensland- Labor allowed massive expansion without have the infrastructure to allow it, hence water shortages, now alleviated by timely rain.

I have to laugh at comments about Hobart being "such a cold place". Heading into mainland summer, it sounds perfect, low 20s most days. One wonders how people ever survived the cradle of Western civilisation, Europe, where even in summer, some places struggle to get over 15C.

Taswegian and Ludwig

We may well decide we want deeper cuts in emissions than can be achieved by substituting gas for coal, but we have to be realistic about the timeframe within which that can be achieved. We don’t have the technology or resources yet to substitute renewable for emissions-intensive energy sources on a scale or at a cost that is feasible. That’s why I described gas as a transition fuel – a step in the right direction but not the end-point in the move to a low-emissions economy. This will take decades.

We can’t compel China or anyone else to stop burning coal, nor are poor and developing countries likely to sacrifice growth in income for lower greenhouse emissions. We can, however, help by making their economies less emissions-intensive that they otherwise would be.

If we don’t sell gas to Asia, those countries will either buy the gas from somewhere else or burn coal instead. If they choose the former, there is no gain in global emissions from our refusal to sell them gas; if the latter, we make things worse

*We can’t compel China or anyone else to stop burning coal, nor are poor and developing countries likely to sacrifice growth in income for lower greenhouse emissions. We can, however, help by making their economies less emissions-intensive that they otherwise would be.*

Rhian once again makes perfect sense here.

Besides, given that most the Eastern States economy is built on
building more houses for more migrants, then everyone adminsters
each other, somebody in Australia has to generate exports, so that
you lot can continue your cushy lifestyles. WA happens to be it.

Understood Rhian.

However, while there may be some merit in providing gas to Asia and as such making some countries more inclined to develop gas-powered plants instead of coal-powered ones, it is very much a case of gas on top of coal. That is, more amd more emissions rather than any direct substitution of current coal-fired power for gas.

So we could easily argue that in providing gas, we are facilitating and promulgating the continuous increase in carbon emissions.

I think it is a bit rich for us to be attributing any net benefit in terms of climate change to our gas exports.

If we were sincere in our efforts to reduce climate change, we simply wouldn't be doing it.

And if we didn't have this absurd mindset of a endlessly growing population and an endlessly expanding economy to support it, we wouldn't need to have developed this industry.

In fact, if we were really genuine in dealing with climate change, we'd be developing a stable-population stable-energy steady-state economic regime forthwith, and displaying it to the world as an example of the best way to move forward, both in terms of climate change and sustainability.

2010 temperatures were the hottest since records were kept.

If carbon is a problem,then tax it as it comes out of the ground.Our Govts get the tax to premote alternative energy sources.No they want to tax the end user.So we are rewarding the polluters.The whole AGW theory is a lying scam for the benefit of those at the top of the pyramid .

"2010 temperatures were the hottest since records were kept."
Posted by 579.

Incorrect.

Dry winter in WA..... hmm, that used to be called drought. We named it a long time ago because IT HAPPENS.

I don't know about the west, but climate change has certainly hit the east.

It's freezing our thingumabobs off around here, & it's supposed to be summer.

Talk about roll on the new ice age.