More weird weather with record rain

This past week, south eastern Australia has been hit with more weird weather.  A low decided to sit still over Victoria and NSW, carrying water down from the tropical north, relentlessly dropping rain for several days.

Lots of towns and huge areas of farmland are under water in south eastern Australia.

Mount Buffalo in Victoria's north east copped a beating, recording 163 mm in 24 hours (highest March daily rainfall since 1950) and 533 mm in the past week, reportedly the highest seven day total on record. The previous record was 483 mm in 1956.

NSW has also been badly affected.

Here is a picture showing what it looked like yesterday - at the tail end of the dump on 3 March this year:

Heavier rain is what is expected in a warming world.  Australia has been getting a taste of what is to come this century, in terms of floods, droughts and fires.

Bob Carter defends being paid to muddy the waters on climate science - maybe he's just ignorant, not a deliberate liar

There have been a couple of articles describing the reaction from outspoken professional climate science denialist, Dr Bob Carter, to the fact that the libertarian lobby group, 'the Heartland Institute' pays him for writing denialist nonsense.

Ben Cubby, in his article for the Sydney Morning Herald quotes Carter saying:

"The idea that a professional scientist - and a particularly distinguished scientist, if I may say - gives an opinion which has been paid for, is offensive". 

I hope he pulls up his fellow retired scientist, Garth Paltridge, who has implied the opposite.  Maybe when Paltridge was employed by Australian government organisations he felt compelled to report what he thought the government of the day wanted to hear.  The government of the day when Paltridge worked for the Australian government included long stretches by both the conservative Liberal Party and the ALP. According to fellow climate confusionist, Bob Carter, such a notion is offensive.

Anyway, now Dr Carter seems to be assuring us that he was chosen by the various lobby groups (Heartland, IPA, Lavoisier etc) because he is unable at a more fundamental level to accept mainstream climate science - and that he is not feigning his denialism and PCT affliction for the sake of a few dollars. (PCT = paranoid conspiracy theory)

Graeme Readfearn also interviewed Dr Carter.  Readfearn writes:

Professor Carter has also been a speaker at six of Heartland’s climate change conferences. The documents show Professor Carter will receive $1667 per month from Heartland in 2012 to work on a project called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.

I asked Professor Carter if he was aware of the leak. He claimed he wasn’t, but then told me.

“Heartland is one of a number of think-tanks and institutions that I work with. Sometimes I’m paid an honorarium, sometimes expenses and sometimes I do it pro-bono.”

On his website, Dr Carter states about himself:

He receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments.

Was he lying when he wrote that?  Or maybe he is admitting what most people know, that Carter does not do climate science research and that the NIPCC report is not 'research', it's a piece of political propaganda.

Does Carter suffer from cognitive dissonance or is he able to hold his conflicting ideas with no ill effects?  This recent paper shows that people are able to hold contradictory notions at the same time if their ideological make up is strong enough to overcome their reason.  ScienceDaily published an article about the paper and said:

The researchers wanted to know if the contradictory beliefs were due to suspicion of authorities, so they asked 102 college students about the death of Osama bin Laden (OBL). People who believed that "when the raid took place, OBL was already dead," were significantly more likely to also believe that "OBL is still alive." Since bin Laden is not Schrödinger's cat, he must either be alive or dead.

Whether it's more likely that Carter (and Paltridge) suffer from this affliction, making them perfect patsies for denialist lobby groups, or whether it's more likely they are deliberately lying and deliberately spreading disinformation, is up for debate.

No More Normal - Australia's Big Wet and Long Term Dry

Today the Bureau of Meteorology issued a Special Climate Statement: Australia's wettest two year period on record; 2010-2011.

The statement speaks for itself.  There are towns this year, as there were last year, having record floods.

Following the 'Big Dry' it would seem that Australia is no longer having extremes interspersed with 'normal' periods, but is swinging from one extreme to another - with a long term underlying drying trend across much of the country.  There is no 'normal' any more.

Long-term below average rainfall
This is not the only thing as the Bureau of Meteorology statement points out:

As wet as it has been, the longer term averages still show much of Australia to have received below-average rainfall. Dry conditions have persisted across both southwestern and southeastern Australia in recent decades. The drought conditions can be characterised in a number of different ways. Perhaps the most statistically significant rainfall changes that have occurred are a 10-20% reduction in autumn and winter rainfall across the southeast since 1996, and a similar decline in winter rainfall across the southwest since around 1970. The April to November period is the main rainfall and runoff season for both these parts of Australia, with less rainfall falling in summer. Special Climate Statement 9, released in October 2006, reported on an exceptionally dry decade in parts of southern and eastern Australia (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs9a.pdf).

During the period of declining autumn and winter rainfall, there has also been an absence of wet years across the south-east and south-west. This has exacerbated drought conditions in these regions.

The substantial decline in autumn and winter rainfall in recent decades is largely associated with a reduction in rainfall from cold fronts/low pressure systems and an increase in mean surface pressure, associated with an increase in the number of high pressure systems.

From the BoM Climate Statement 38:

No reversal to decline in autumn-winter rainfall in southern Australia

Despite the back to back La Nina's, most of the rain was from the monsoons up north.  There was no return of a return to what used to be the normal autumn-winter rainfall down south.  It looks as if the climate of Australia has changed for good now, and will probably keep changing over the coming decades as global warming continues.  South western Australia missed out pretty well altogether.  The Bureau's statement states (my emphasis):

It is notable, however, that the bulk of the above average rainfall of the past two years fell during the northern wet season (typically running from around October to April), with tropical influenced weather systems bringing monsoonal-like rainfall to much of the continent. By contrast, dry conditions persisted during the 2010 and 2011 April to June period (the start of the early winter rainfall period) across southern Australia.

The high 2010 and 2011 rainfall was therefore not associated with winter-time storm systems, and did not represent a return to normal conditions over the southern Australian winter season. In this way, the recent trend of rainfall reductions in autumn and winter was not reversed by the back-toback La Niña events.

Furthermore, the sustained La Niña conditions failed to meaningfully impact on rainfall across southwestern Western Australia. In Figure 1 the below average rainfall in the southwest of the country compared to 1973-74 is evident. This area is largely dependent on frontal systems during the winter half of the year, and missed out on a lot of the tropical moisture that much of the rest of the country received. Also, by comparing the two maps, we can see that southeastern Australia also received more rainfall in 1973-74, though the differences are not significant.

It would appear that Australian's need to brace themselves for record floods across much of Australia during the wet season in La Nina years, and record droughts, high temperatures and associated wildfires during El Nino years.  And the 'normal' in-between years will continue to get hotter and drier across much of the country.  

Cattle Banned! Finally some protection for Victoria's High Plains

Victoria's high country is safe from cattle grazing in the national park.  The Victorian Government says it is not ruling out a High Court challenge, but lets hope they don't waste their money.  It's enough that they've reneged on other environmentally important issues, like restricting wind farms.

After the cattle were kicked out last time around, the plants grew profusely.  I've been visiting the high plains for forty years and, until a couple of years after the cattle had left, I had never in my life seen such a density of growth with so many different plants growing together.

Here is the media release from Tony Burke MP, the Federal Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities:

A proposal by the Victorian Government to reintroduce cattle to the National Heritage listed Alpine National Park in Victoria has been determined to be clearly unacceptable under national environmental law and will not proceed. 

Environment Minister Tony Burke said after careful consideration he had accepted the advice of the Environment Department that the proposal to reintroduce cattle to the Alpine National Park would have a clearly unacceptable impact on the national heritage values of the Australian Alps National Parks and Reserves National Heritage Place.

In December, the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment submitted a proposal to the Federal Government for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 to reintroduce up to 400 cattle to graze in the state's Alpine National Park for up to five months a year for five years, as a research trial.
Nine out of the 10 sites selected by the Victorian Government are partly or entirely located within the Australian Alps National Parks and Reserves which was included on the National Heritage List in 2008. The area contains a number of important ecological environments.
Last year, the Federal Government made regulatory changes that formally recognise the significant impact of livestock grazing on the Australian Alps National Parks and Reserves National Heritage place under the EPBC Act.

The regulation specifies that grazing of domestic stock including cattle could have a significant impact on the heritage values of the Australian Alps Heritage Area and that any future new grazing activities proposed in the Australian Alps Heritage Area, including the Alpine National Park, need to be assessed under the EPBC Act.

"My decision is based on a thorough and rigorous assessment of the proposal, taking into account the advice of my department," Mr Burke said.

"I have accepted the advice of my department that the proposed action of reintroducing up to 400 cattle would have a clearly unacceptable impact on the listed national heritage values of the Australian Alps National Parks and Reserves National Heritage Place.

"The assessment has shown there is irrefutable evidence that cattle grazing would damage the sensitive natural environment, disturb the remote and wild character of the area, detract from aesthetic values, and erode its heritage values.

"While my personal views on this matter are known, in determining this decision I have considered only whether or not the proposed action would be in breach of the EPBC Act.
The Alpine National Park forms part of the Australian Alps National Parks and Reserves national heritage place that was listed on the National Heritage List to identify and protect the wide range of nationally significant natural and cultural values found within it. The parks and reserves extend over the Victorian, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory borders and in total cover over 1.6 million hectares.

Scientists say the Draft Murray-Darling Basin Plan should be scrapped

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists have called for the Draft Murray Darling Basin Plan, released last month, to be scrapped

They say the plan should be started afresh.  Not throwing out all the work they've done - but they need to completely  re-think what the plan is meant to be a plan of (water management, irrigation, environmental flows and so forth).  It's not a plan yet and it won't do the job.

This is the next episode in the ongoing sad saga of planning for the Murray Darling Basin.

Previously - Mike Taylor quit as Chair of the Murray Darling Basin Authority, saying the government set impossible expectations that could not be delivered and were not in accordance with the Water Act.  He had just released the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan, flagging  "a long-term average increase of 7,600 GL/y (would mean) the environmental targets are all met and all catchments improve from their existing status to good flow levels".

The Minister then appointed former NSW Labor MP Craig Knowles as Chair.  Shortly afterwards, Wentworth Group of Scientists who were consulting on the plan quit.  They said the process itself was flawed and that a decision had already been made that the minimum flows required (4,000 GL/year) would not be met.

Knowles released the draft Basin Plan last month, which only provides for environmental flows of 2,750 GL/year.

The prospects for the Murray Darling have fallen a lot, as shown by:

• 2010 - Desirable 7600 GL/year
• 2010 - Probably target 4000 GL/year
• 2011 - 2750 GL/year - less 2600 GL/year removed from groundwater. 

From the Wentworth Group of Scientists:

STATEMENT ON THE 2011 DRAFT MURRAY DARLING BASIN PLAN

The draft Plan released for public comment by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on the 28 November 2011 does not provide the most basic information required to allow anybody to make an informed decision on the future management of the water resources of the Basin.

The absence of this information makes it impossible for the community, science or Parliament to understand the implications or have confidence the Plan has any prospect of delivering a healthy working river:

1. The Plan specifies a volume of water but it does not identify the volume of water required to deliver a healthy working river, as required by the Commonwealth Water Act;

2. The Plan cites river management infrastructure as the limiting factor however there is no assessment of the feasibility or cost of redesigning river management infrastructure (such as periodically flooding paddocks or raising the height of a bridge) so that a healthy working river can be delivered;

3. The Plan does not incorporate in the modelling the impact that increasing groundwater extractions by over 2,600GL will have on surface water flows, many of the groundwater systems in the Basin are linked to river systems;

4. The Plan sets long term diversion limits on the assumption that there is no risk to river health from climate change; and

5. There is no information presented on the effectiveness of the Plan to cope with long dry periods such as that experienced throughout the Basin during most of the last decade, or deliver the volumes of water required keep the Murray mouth open as a functioning (Ramsar listed) estuary and export the 2,000,000 tonnes of salt accumulating in the river system each year.

Details of their statement can be found here.

We'll probably be into the next drought within the next year or two.  What will happen then?  I do hope it is not too late for the Coorong and the red gum plains along the Murray.

Annual Australian Climate Statement 2011

Australia's Bureau of Meteorology has released the Annual Australian Climate Statement 2011.

It was a year of lots of weather!

Lots of contrasts and extremes.  Including tropical cyclones Andrew, Carlos and remember that huge one, Yasi.

Being a La Nina year (twice) there was a lot of rain, flash floods and record intense precipitation. Extreme rain and flood events all over, extreme even by La Nina standards.

It was colder than average up north with some cold records being broken. Down south it was warmer than average, with south western Western Australia being the hottest year on record.  Lots of heat records set around the country during the year as well, including the memorable heat wave in Sydney and new heat records in WA.

Australia as a whole was colder than than the 1961-90 average in 2011, but the year was still warmer than all but one La Nina year on record.

How much time do we have to cut CO2 emissions? 20 years and the budget could be all spent!

I recently worked out for myself how long we have before we use up the 'emissions budget' that is aimed at keeping warming to 2 degrees. I was prompted to do so after reading this article on realclimate.org (see last paragraph).

If emissions were to continue at the current 3% a year (approx) growth rate, and if climate sensitivity is 3 degrees, then we have about 22 years before we've spent the entire emissions budget.

Between 2009 and 2010 emissions grew by 6%. If they kept growing at that rate we only have 17 years left in the budget.

If we had zero growth in worldwide emissions we will have a bit more breathing space - 33 years in the budget (based on 2010 emissions). If we start to reduce emissions (negative growth), we'll have a bit more time again.

After that, we're heading much hotter.

(The calculations are based on an emissions budget of 1,000 million tonnes remaining that we can use to hopefully prevent a rise above 2 degrees - and 2010 emissions of 30.6 million tonnes of CO2e/year.) 

Anyone with a child over 15 years of age will appreciate the short time frame we have. Anyone over 40 who's looked back on their life will recognise that twenty years can fly by so quickly.

I don't imagine for a minute that everyone in the world will stop emitting carbon once the budget is spent. Imagine shutting down all power plants, banning all petrol-driven motor vehicles, immediately proclaiming only horse and plough can be used on farms, stopping all transfer of goods and services by ship, diesel train and oil-powered trucks.

Insurance company, Munich Re, says that we've already missed the boat for two degrees, but that provided governments act, we are able shift to renewables. Seems the US Department of Energy is of the same opinion.  Hopefully we will not let it get too much worse than that.