As Perth completed its coldest September in 120 years of record, it didn’t take long for Jo Nova to be on the case:
In the last 120 years in Perth there has never been a September as cold as this one. We know that thanks to Chris Gillham, who has been tracking Western Australian weather in detail for years at WAClimate.net.
The headline in The West Australian today was Perth shivers through it’s coldest ever September. For some reason (I can’t think why) the extreme weather journalists did not mention climate change (has that ever happened on a hottest ever record story?). It’s so unusually cold here that wheat farmers, only weeks away from harvest*, are struggling with frost damage on crops. They are making snowmen from the frosts. It is supposed to be rapidly heating up but it is three degrees below normal.
Given the freak weather, Will Steffen immediately announced that “This is a prelude to a disturbing future. And it’s only going to get worse if we don’t address climate change.” No. Wait. Scratch that. That was South Australia, where one bad storm was caused by coal fired electrons. A record cold month is just weather.
That was just Perth. How did the rest of Australia fare? Firstly, let’s have another look at the featured image to this post – which is the Bureau of Meteorology’s prediction for September 2016, issued just days before the start of the month:
Looks ominous doesn’t it? Almost everywhere has at least a 50% chance of frying, with many parts having a 60%-80% chance.
As for October 2016, this was the Bureau’s prediction made in August 2016:
And here’s their revised prediction made in September 2016 – after they had some time to think about that nuisance called reality:
Isn’t it amazing how much things can change in a month?
I get it: it’s very hard to accurately predict the temperature a month in advance, let alone a week in advance. Given this, it’s high time that people stopped trying to tell us with a straight face what it’s going to be like over the next 5, 10, 50 or 100 years.
The Marcus Review 
I think it is more sinister. I suspect the models/programs used for the predictions, are deliberately skewed to give the results they want.
LikeLike
I know it sounds conspiratorial, but I can’t help but agree. Even a bunch of random monkeys would have gotten more predictions right by now.
LikeLike
Its more sinister than that.
Back on Aug 21, the date of the September forecast, BOM had at their fingertips the cold southern ocean data, the increased ice coverage in Antarctica and the high north-south ocean water temperature gradient – all indicators of a very cold September.
Despite this, their “models” over-rode these key indicators and came out with a high certainty for a warmer September for most of Australia.
This means either a/ their models are useless, or b/ they have been deliberately biased to show an AGW warming signal.
Either way they are useless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It isn’t sinister, it is simply an accumulation of small choices made over many years that has tilted the models to be hot.
I have little doubt that the models have been tweaked hundreds of times over the years.
LikeLike
Just shows how hard it is to forecast the weather in two months, yet they can accurately predict what it’ll be like in a few years.
LikeLike
Now, now, Marcus – they can’t predict the weather but they can predict the climate!
LikeLike
Actually they don’t predict or project climate. They talk about ‘global average’ with no skill related to spatial distribution of that temperature.
Models can not predict a local climate to any significant degree. That is, there is no place on Earth the models can predict or project well.
LikeLike
Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-founder, says it best
LikeLiked by 1 person
No evidence supports the conjecture that mankind’s contribution to CO2 levels causes warming (that’s what AGW is all about) and there is NASA data (regarding the planet Uranus, for example) and published experiments using centrifugal force that provide evidence against the fictitious fiddled physics of climatology which ignores the maximum entropy production that the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us will occur in all nature. We see that law in operation as it leads to a stable non-zero density gradient in every planetary troposphere, and also a stable non-zero temperature gradient caused by the force field of gravity and thus obviating any need for radiation from the cold atmosphere to cause heat into the warmer surface, which would be impossible anyway. This “obviates the need for concern over GHG’s.” http://whyitsnotco2.com/BigWaveDave-comment.jpg
As Einstein said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” The data from the planet Uranus thus proves the radiative forcing greenhouse conjecture wrong, because the GH hypothesis does NOT explain the temperatures and required heat transfers for that planet, as is easy to see. Nor does it for any other planet including Earth. A fundamental requirement for any hypothesis is that it conforms with the laws of physics. No amount of apparently supporting data is relevant if such laws are ignored. And notice that, in the following copy of a previous comment, I only use the word “supported” without claiming the evidence proves me right.
James Hansen, NASA and all IPCC authors are presenting incorrect physics. Their first fundamental error was to assume that, in the absence of so-called “greenhouse gases” (1% water vapor, 0.04% carbon dioxide and some others) the Earth’s surface temperature would have been the same as that about 5Km up into the troposphere. This ignores the effect of gravity which (as has been discussed since the 19th century) forms a stable equilibrium non-zero temperature gradient in every planet’s troposphere. Now, in the 21st century, experiments with centrifuges and vortex cooling tubes demonstrate centrifugal force also creating a radial temperature gradient for the same reason that gravity does. Furthermore, a correct understanding of the process of entropy maximization in physics enables us to explain why this happens as gravity acts on molecules between collisions. So there is no need to explain the warmer surface temperature with radiation, and radiation is not the cause thereof.
The second fundamental error is that, in their unnecessary attempts to explain the fact that the surface temperature is warmer than that 5Km above, climatologists have incorrectly assumed that they can just add together the flux of radiation from the Sun and about double that flux from the colder atmosphere. The latter can have no warming effect what-so-ever on the warmer surface, whilst even the solar radiation does not always raise the existing surface temperature, especially in winter and in the early morning and late afternoon. Once again, we can confirm that radiation can not be compounded like that with a simple experiment. We can measure the temperature to which a single electric bar radiator will raise an object and then see if several such radiators achieve the results that climatologists would like to see. They don’t come anywhere near doing so.
My “heat creep” hypothesis (based on physics that was known about in the 19th century) and the greenhouse hypothesis are mutually exclusive: if one is correct then the other is false. Mine is supported by copious evidence both on Earth and throughout the Solar System.
Now, getting back to my initial statement, “There is absolutely no valid physics that proves ‘greenhouse’ gases like water vapor, CO2 and CH4 warm.” we now need to discuss the “deductive” process. You see, James Hansen assumed carbon dioxide could warm the surface based on deductive reasoning from physics which he thought was correct. Nothing would have got off the ground otherwise. For example, you might note a correlation between CO2 levels and the incidence of heart disease which has risen dramatically in the last 100 years. But, unless you had some correct scientific deductive reasoning regarding a possible cause and effect relationship, you wouldn’t even bother to go looking for correlation, and you would know that it would not prove anything anyway. The analogy is a good one, because James Hansen’s physics (assuming isothermal conditions in the absence of GH gas) has now been proven wrong with experiments, including hundreds using sealed cylinders that develop a temperature gradient due to the force of gravity, as well as every functioning vortex cooling tube that also develops a very obvious radial temperature gradient due to centrifugal force. Hence, if we now go back to Square One, we have no valid physics which, by deductive reasoning, could possibly lead to Hansen’s assumption of isothermal conditions between the surface and the radiating altitude. So his hypothesis does not even get off the ground. And that is why it is easy to find planetary data that proves it wrong.
LikeLike
The biggest single mistake in the radiative forcing greenhouse hypothesis is the assumption that radiative flux and heat flux are the same. The facts are that radiative flux may be in all directions back and forth between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere, but the heat transfer is only ever one-way from warmer to cooler as Professor Claes Johnson showed in his 110-page paper entitled “Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation.” He writes on page 43: “Of course, this is what is expected from conservation of energy. It can also be viewed as a 2nd Law of Radiation stating that radiative heat transfer is possible only from warmer to cooler.” Here is the link: http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf
LikeLike
a) Is ‘Global Warming’ reality or nonsense?
It depends on the way you define ‘global warming’. In fact, temperatures have been is shallow decline since the Holocene Optimum 8,000 years ago. But it isn’t a steady decline. There are excursions up a degree or two in the Minoan, Egyptian Old Kingdom, Roman, Medieval and twentieth century warming periods. There were also cold spells as a result of the Maunder and Dalton minimums. For a decade or two, folks who study our sun have been suggesting we are in for another Little Ice Age, and very soon.
b) Is warming bad?
Do people escape to the Poles for a holiday? Do Australians bad mouth Canberra and Tasmania because they are too hot? Are you mad? The most prosperous times for homo Sapiens have been during the warmer periods.
c) Does CO2 affect the temperature?
“Greenhouse Effect” is a misnomer and an urban legend. There is NO geographic correlation of CO2 concentration and temperature, apart for an apparent increase in CO2 about 800 years AFTER a warming period. Causes never PRECEDE effects. IF CO2 has any effect, it is one of nearly imperceptible COOLING.
d) Do human activities affect atmospheric CO2? IN YOUR DREAMS. So-called “fossil fuels” produce CO2 with C14 atoms. There has been no increase in atmospheric C14 since the end of atmospheric nuclear testing. About 3/4 of the CO2 from human activities have occurred in the last two decades. Temperatures have been declining slightly since 1940. (Australia’s BOM published the results of millions of radiosond weather balloons released since 1950. The trend is ever so lightly DOWN. It has been said that the outcome of WWII was because the USA entered the fray on a “sea of oil”. During that six year period CO@ concentration DECREASED.
e) Does the CAGW nonsense cost anything? Who pays for this sophistry and sorcery?
Trillions of dollars, and YOU pay the bills.
LikeLike
The only reason the BOM invented a percentage chance of hot weather chart, is so they can have lots of red in it, and red is always scary!
LikeLike