Thursday, March 08, 2012 10:32 AM
- ----- Original Message -----
From: g87Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 10:32 AMSubject: FOR PUBLICATION: EL NINO / LA NINA SCAM!!Geoff Seidner
13 Alston Grove
East St Kilda 3183
03 9525 9299
EL NINO / LA NINA SCAM!!With due consideration to the discreditable ramblings of Australia's overpaid Climate Commissioner - Stewart Franks article in The Australian 8/3 should be challenged.His postulations about the so called El Nino / La Nina weather patterns are not credible. For a start it is plainly like a religion as is climate change. Indeed it is Jesus / Mary derivated: ''boy child / girl child''Plainly it is disrespectfull.To add poignancy he seems to believe a theorem that is predicated on the trite simplicity that when it is dry it is the former [boy / Jesus child] - and vice versa [girl child] for the latter!Frank uses an abstruce, obtuse range of buzz words and the amazing acronyms of the true believers in trying to illustrate all this. Sadly, with qualifiers / modifiers to hide the shallowness of it all1I quote:
''The dominance of La Nina and an associated southward shift in the location of the Intertropical Convergence Zone meant that tropical deluges of rain were frequent and extreme.''Please note that here we have ''an associated southern shift in the location of the INTERTROPICAL CONVERGENCE ZONE...'' responsible for one set of patterns. The wet / La Nina.Oh - did you notice this is stated to dominate? And this domination is responsible for the 'wet' BIG WET!!The corrolary is that somehow - in his academic's mind - this ''domination'' is eventually broken - and Jesus child comes to dominate. What causes this change in the dichotomy of the believer? Later he admits he has no idea. No one has!Why does he mention it?
Perhaps he does not expect to be asked!It is indeed a sign of the times that theories are not impeached!Never mind this tangent / question - we go on.2By 1975 we return to Jesus dominance. Droughts.3
Then:''The past few years have brought a return to dominant La Nina conditions,'' Floods.[Could have fooled me about the 'last few years.']4Never mind - he now unheroically wrestles with:''It is therefore no surprise that we have witnessed flooding of a magnitude last seen in 1974, the last of the strong La Nina events before the present period. Nor is it a surprise that the dams are full or filling.''Really? Now he resorts to ''the last of the strong La Nina events''Wow- look at his astonishing ''last'' claim - and the quaint childish modifier of strong La Nina.''Like he is trying to add gravitas to his pet theory!5But there is more!
''It is therefore no surprise that we have witnessed flooding of a magnitude last seen in 1974, the last of the strong La Nina events before the present period. Nor is it a surprise that the dams are full or filling.''
AHA!
This paragraph is full of it!
Post - facto justification of all he wrote earlier with his self - declaimed: ''No surprise''
How infantile.
6
Now it gets interesting:
....................................................''It is therefore no surprise that we have witnessed flooding of a magnitude last seen in 1974, the last of the strong La Nina events before the present period. Nor is it a surprise that the dams are full or filling.This cycling of El Nino and La Nina dominance on periods of about 20 to 40 years has been associated with a long-term climate mode known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, sometimes known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.
The PDO-IPO is characterised by long-term trends in warming and cooling in the mid-latitudes of the Pacific Ocean, which in turn are related to variable periods of global warming and cooling.''.......................................Never mind his trite ''no - surprise'' theorem - for - everything post - facto climatic!! It is indeeed replete with logical contradictions that I will ignore.Most important is that Professor Frank now has seeming justification for it all by appending names to his amazing postulations.LOOK AT HOW CUTE ARE THESE WORDS!!Pacific Decadal Oscillation,
Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.
andThe PDO-IPO7It is the last one that discredits the poor man; with his own words, mind you!Look at what follows:''This cycling of El Nino and La Nina dominance on periods of about 20 to 40 years has been associated with a long-term climate mode known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, sometimes known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.The PDO-IPO is characterised by long-term trends in warming and cooling in the mid-latitudes of the Pacific Ocean, which in turn are related to variable periods of global warming and cooling.''OH dear!It is this PDO - IPO that really does him in.Later in his article he describes one of his acronymous phrases:''
Relatively short trends are clearly irrelevant given the multidecadal variability of eastern Australian climate driven by El Nino-La Nina Southern Oscillation and the PDO-IPO.''
SO:
Here is the punchline!The Southern Oscilation Index [SOI - is stated to vary: ''the multidecal variability...''OH THE VARIABILITY OF IT ALL!!FURTHERMORE - How absurd is the phrase:
multidecal variability'' and theSOI!
Understand that it is all plainly asinine.
I do not have to explain, do I??
8
Oh please - no more!
But there is more!
He admits it is all ''uncertain''!!
''Despite our uncertainty about the PDO-IPO, one thing should be abundantly clear: to look at simple trends across a relatively short 40-year period is meaningless. If one looks at the trends in eastern Australian climate from 1950 to the present, one can see a marked, statistically significant decline in rainfall and flood risk.
However, if one looks at a similar length of records from, say, 1925 to 1975, we see a statistically significant trend, but in the opposite direction: upward. If Flannery were hawking his climate change message back in 1975, he would probably be claiming that the carbon climate future would be one of permanent flood.
Relatively short trends are clearly irrelevant given the multidecadal variability of eastern Australian climate driven by El Nino-La Nina Southern Oscillation and the PDO-IPO.''
.................................................
Much the same as the religion of Climate Change: hot / cold / wet / dry / floods / fire/ cyclones et al - it is climate change.
And here we have a justification / explanation of how we need 40 or more years to debunk his nonsense!
I hope he lives to a doddery age!!
9
So we come to the denouement. How is the above for pure hypocrasy? Even if I feel nervous about seeming to support the hapless, hopeless Flannery - the below is amazingly inept - even from a professor.
How does such an absurd religion come to exist in unison with Climate Lunacy?
Note editor: I include references herein - from sources that plainly accept this lunacy of El Nino / La Nina dichotomous nonsense.
Geoff Seidner
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
News for wet behind the ears on climate
-
The Australian - 8 hours agoIn response to this growing criticism, Flannery has declared that the recent "big wet" cannot be taken as evidence that climate change is not happening ...//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This was back in 2007 at the height of the protracted drought that afflicted eastern Australia. Now, for the second year in a row, we see the effects of El Nino's twin sister -- La Nina -- bringing extreme rainfall across great swaths of Australia. This is hardly the climate change future envisaged by Flannery.
Flannery has recently been the target of growing criticism for his wildly speculative claims, in particular from Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones.
Perhaps of even greater significance, Flannery is being publicly criticised by prominent meteorologists. Indeed, The Weather Channel's Dick Whitaker recently stated: "People ideally suited to (weather forecasting) are meteorologists. From what I can see on Tim Flannery, meteorology wasn't one of his specialties."
In response to this growing criticism, Flannery has declared that the recent "big wet" cannot be taken as evidence that climate change is not happening -- it is merely an interlude before we continue with the drying of the continent.
In a statement of extreme chutzpah, he also has declared that interpreting the recent wet is merely confusing weather with climate.
In a recent opinion piece published by The Daily Telegraph (March 2), Flannery stated: "Despite our wet summer, the long-term trend shows that southeastern Australia is getting drier. This is the difference
between weather and climate. Weather is about what's happening day-to-day and year-to-year. But climate refers to weather trends over the long ter
"Records over the past 40 years indicate that rainfall has been steadily declining in southern and eastern Australia and studies by the CSIRO show that it's likely to continue."
The first thing to note about Flannery's recent statements is that they do not include an admission that he got it wrong regarding future rainfall not filling the dams. He did unequivocally get it wrong; it was a stupid comment to make and it was inevitable that it would eventually be seen as such.
That Flannery appears to be defending his alarmism by pointing to others confusing weather for climate just provides another example (if one were needed) of his ignorance of the science of climate variability in eastern Australia.
In fact, Flannery's error was to confuse climate variability for climate change.
The observed history of Australian climate is a lot longer than just the recent 40 years cited by Flannery. Australia regularly experiences epochs lasting between 20 to 40 years when extreme floods cluster, only to be succeeded by a similarly long period when droughts dominate and flooding is only occasional.Between 1910 and 1945, a dominance of El Nino with only a few La Nina events led to long-term and persistent drought in Australia.About 1945, we experienced a major change in climate from this previously El Nino-dominated regime to one dominated by La Nina events. This led to as much as a threefold rise in the average annual maximum flood across eastern Australia.The dominance of La Nina and an associated southward shift in the location of the Intertropical Convergence Zone meant that tropical deluges of rain were frequent and extreme.About 1975 we returned to El Nino event dominance. Once again, Australia suffered repeated droughts and very few floods, culminating in the terrible drought that Flannery thought would never end.The past few years have brought a return to dominant La Nina conditions.It is therefore no surprise that we have witnessed flooding of a magnitude last seen in 1974, the last of the strong La Nina events before the present period. Nor is it a surprise that the dams are full or filling.This cycling of El Nino and La Nina dominance on periods of about 20 to 40 years has been associated with a long-term climate mode known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, sometimes known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.The PDO-IPO is characterised by long-term trends in warming and cooling in the mid-latitudes of the Pacific Ocean, which in turn are related to variable periods of global warming and cooling.Given Flannery's penchant for CO2-driven climate change, it is perhaps no wonder that this climate mode is largely ignored in his predictions; it appears to be a complication that the climate models still cannot reproduce. How it relates to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations remains largely unknown.Despite our uncertainty about the PDO-IPO, one thing should be abundantly clear: to look at simple trends across a relatively short 40-year period is meaningless. If one looks at the trends in eastern Australian climate from 1950 to the present, one can see a marked, statistically significant decline in rainfall and flood risk.However, if one looks at a similar length of records from, say, 1925 to 1975, we see a statistically significant trend, but in the opposite direction: upward. If Flannery were hawking his climate change message back in 1975, he would probably be claiming that the carbon climate future would be one of permanent flood.Relatively short trends are clearly irrelevant given the multidecadal variability of eastern Australian climate driven by El Nino-La Nina Southern Oscillation and the PDO-IPO.Flannery in his opinion piece has also stated: "Some commentators jump on any cold spell or rainy period to claim climate change is not happening. This cherry-picking is irresponsible and misleading."It is also true that some commentators jumped on the recent drought to claim climate change was happening. This cherry-picking is indeed irresponsible and entirely misleading.Stewart Franks is associate professor in the school of engineering at the University of Newcastle specialising in hydro-climatic variability and hydrological modelling.//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was back in 2007 at the height of the protracted drought that afflicted eastern Australia. Now, for the second year in a row, we see the effects of El Nino's twin sister -- La Nina -- bringing extreme rainfall across great swaths of Australia. This is hardly the climate change future envisaged by Flannery.
Flannery has recently been the target of growing criticism for his wildly speculative claims, in particular from Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones.
Perhaps of even greater significance, Flannery is being publicly criticised by prominent meteorologists. Indeed, The Weather Channel's Dick Whitaker recently stated: "People ideally suited to (weather forecasting) are meteorologists. From what I can see on Tim Flannery, meteorology wasn't one of his specialties."
In response to this growing criticism, Flannery has declared that the recent "big wet" cannot be taken as evidence that climate change is not happening -- it is merely an interlude before we continue with the drying of the continent.
In a statement of extreme chutzpah, he also has declared that interpreting the recent wet is merely confusing weather with climate.
In a recent opinion piece published by The Daily Telegraph (March 2), Flannery stated: "Despite our wet summer, the long-term trend shows that southeastern Australia is getting drier. This is the differencebetween weather and climate. Weather is about what's happening day-to-day and year-to-year. But climate refers to weather trends over the long ter
"Records over the past 40 years indicate that rainfall has been steadily declining in southern and eastern Australia and studies by the CSIRO show that it's likely to continue."
The first thing to note about Flannery's recent statements is that they do not include an admission that he got it wrong regarding future rainfall not filling the dams. He did unequivocally get it wrong; it was a stupid comment to make and it was inevitable that it would eventually be seen as such.
That Flannery appears to be defending his alarmism by pointing to others confusing weather for climate just provides another example (if one were needed) of his ignorance of the science of climate variability in eastern Australia.
In fact, Flannery's error was to confuse climate variability for climate change.
The observed history of Australian climate is a lot longer than just the recent 40 years cited by Flannery. Australia regularly experiences epochs lasting between 20 to 40 years when extreme floods cluster, only to be succeeded by a similarly long period when droughts dominate and flooding is only occasional.Between 1910 and 1945, a dominance of El Nino with only a few La Nina events led to long-term and persistent drought in Australia.About 1945, we experienced a major change in climate from this previously El Nino-dominated regime to one dominated by La Nina events. This led to as much as a threefold rise in the average annual maximum flood across eastern Australia.The dominance of La Nina and an associated southward shift in the location of the Intertropical Convergence Zone meant that tropical deluges of rain were frequent and extreme.About 1975 we returned to El Nino event dominance. Once again, Australia suffered repeated droughts and very few floods, culminating in the terrible drought that Flannery thought would never end.The past few years have brought a return to dominant La Nina conditions.It is therefore no surprise that we have witnessed flooding of a magnitude last seen in 1974, the last of the strong La Nina events before the present period. Nor is it a surprise that the dams are full or filling.This cycling of El Nino and La Nina dominance on periods of about 20 to 40 years has been associated with a long-term climate mode known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, sometimes known as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.The PDO-IPO is characterised by long-term trends in warming and cooling in the mid-latitudes of the Pacific Ocean, which in turn are related to variable periods of global warming and cooling.Given Flannery's penchant for CO2-driven climate change, it is perhaps no wonder that this climate mode is largely ignored in his predictions; it appears to be a complication that the climate models still cannot reproduce. How it relates to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations remains largely unknown.Despite our uncertainty about the PDO-IPO, one thing should be abundantly clear: to look at simple trends across a relatively short 40-year period is meaningless. If one looks at the trends in eastern Australian climate from 1950 to the present, one can see a marked, statistically significant decline in rainfall and flood risk.However, if one looks at a similar length of records from, say, 1925 to 1975, we see a statistically significant trend, but in the opposite direction: upward. If Flannery were hawking his climate change message back in 1975, he would probably be claiming that the carbon climate future would be one of permanent flood.Relatively short trends are clearly irrelevant given the multidecadal variability of eastern Australian climate driven by El Nino-La Nina Southern Oscillation and the PDO-IPO.Flannery in his opinion piece has also stated: "Some commentators jump on any cold spell or rainy period to claim climate change is not happening. This cherry-picking is irresponsible and misleading."It is also true that some commentators jumped on the recent drought to claim climate change was happening. This cherry-picking is indeed irresponsible and entirely misleading.Stewart Franks is associate professor in the school of engineering at the University of Newcastle specialising in hydro-climatic variability and hydrological modelling.
-
No comments:
Post a Comment