“They didn’t say it wasn’t going to be wet, they simply stated a probability that it was slightly more likely to be dry.”

And they were wrong, but my point is that probability predictions are pretty useless even when they turn out to be right, which at values within say 20% of the mean is going to be more or less half the time. Vague and unreliable. After more than 30 years on the land I’ve never seen any systematically useful long-term predictions. They pop up everywhere in the rural media and farmers just smile. If for example they punt on a crop because of an encouraging long-term forecast, they’re likely to come a cropper.

As for the Indian Ocean dipole etc, I mentioned oceanic temps as the beginnings of understanding of at least that climate driver. The Incas knew about El Nino and La Nina for centuries of course. At least this variable gives forecasters a chance of predicting something useful. But as this year’s predictions show, forecasters still don’t know if an El Nino is imminent or, if it appears, whether it will suppress rainfall (not every El Nino does).

And as for the severity of past droughts, we all know this one is the worst on record for the M-D basin the SE axis (Adelaide-Hobart). My point is that 150 years of records doesn’t preclude this drought being part of a longer cycle, and tells us nothing about the future whatever- because we don’t know why this drought is worse.

To say that “reporters aren’t scientists”, therefore it’s OK to report qualified opinions as “proof”, is disingenuous. Melissa Fyffe was the environment reporter for The Age before her current job description. She’s supposed to know the difference, as all reporters should, between categorical statements and qualified ones. It’s patronising to assume otherwise.

Genuine climate change evidence is devalued by spruiking overstated claims or claims based on individual weather events.

Davo you just can’t believe there might be a rational person left who’s not a card-carrying partisan in the AGW civil war, can you.

Well done Frank. The first person in a long time who has said anything interesting about the weather, or the climate, without bible-bashing me in the process.

Dr Timbal of the Met did say that it is reasonable to think that anthropogenic warming is causing a lot of the drought and then he went on to quantify this with an estimate of 80% contribution. The reporter may have used the word proof, but reporters aren’t scientists. All science is based on the idea that theories can’t be proven only disproven. This doesn’t mean that theores aren’t useful, because they can’t be proven, because as models of the physical world they can still be used to predict the future within prescribed limits.

Mellissa Fyfe did not quote a contrary view of an EXPERT in this particular field of climate research. She quoted the CEO of the Murry Darling Basin, Rob Freeman, a professional public service manager, not a climate scientist. He used weasel words to put a corporate spin on the issue, but basically agreed with Timbal. I don’t think he was even responding directly to the research. What Freeman was quoted as saying is:

“Some commentators (not scientists) say this is the new future. I think that is an extreme position and probably a position that’s not helpful to take,” he said, expressing confidence that wetter times would return.”

He did not say that things would return to normal, he simply said it would get wetter. I would have asked him how wet? And to what level of confidence. He may have provided facts to back his words. If he did, they were not reported.

The idea that we have no clue as to the severity of drought in Australia is rubbish.

Significant work has been done by a number of scientists in this area. Of particular relevence to the climate in South Eastern Australia is the work of Caroline Ummenhofer, of the Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) regarding the effects of the Indian Ocean Dipole on South East Australian rain fall. She demonstrates clearly using rainfall and the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PSDI) that the current drought is far worse in terms of its severity to any other drought since the 1890’s. The Palmer Drought Severity Index is an excellent long term indicator of drought as it takes account of both rainfall and evaporation. The index is nearly twice as severe in the current drought as the next worst recorded Federation drought and far greater than the other droughts over this period. The current drought has lasted longer that the Federation drought and isn’t over yet. This study did not link the current drought to climate change, but it certainly quantified it’s severity in comparison to earlier droughts and its corellation with the indian ocean dipole.

On the issue of the bureau’s wrong prediction of lower rainfall in the south east. The bureau provided an estimated probability of the rainfall based on weather modelling. They didn’t say it wasn’t going to be wet, they simply stated a probability that it was slightly more likely to be dry. Anyone with a ounce of statistical nouse knows that a high probability item does not rule out a low one and that the notion of being wrong about a stochastic process is an extremely immature approach to the topic. I would propose on this basis that there are some great developmental opportunities for this particular writer.

It’s all part of growing up.

And the point about AGW is that no one knows how it has affected/will affect regional weather or climate. Which doesn’t stop it being dragged into debate after every bushfire, windstorm or “rain event”.

I was amused having given us the facts that “climate science is in its infancy and may never grow up” and that the BOM was “wrong” in their forecast of winter’s rainfall, the author goes on to make his own at the end.