As Gareth observes the graph you wanted posted shows warming every decade since the 1940s. So any starting date after that time would be ‘sinisterly’ convenient? You’d like them to have started at a date that would give a lower rate of decadal variability? That would certainly be ‘convenient’ for you, I’m not entirely sure of the benefit to anyone else. You acknowledge that one has to start somewhere? And that the last half century would appear to be quite a bit more justifiable than picking, say, 1998?

Temperature change in Australia does not prove man made warming (temperatures have always changed, and this is regional)

Again, this is either monumentally trivial, or you just don’t get it! No, Australia’s experience does not ‘prove’ AGW. And no one can prove that any current drought, or rainfall deficit, is specifically caused by ‘man made’ warming! And?

CSIRO and the BOM still want us to know ‘Climate Change is real’, not because they’re not as sophisticated as you and just can’t help themselves in rushing to overstate a case, but because they live in the real world. We could spend an eternity filtering out ‘just AGW forcings’ to your ‘perfection of proof’ standard, and they’d probably still remain ‘very likely’ (in the 90% sense) to be responsible.

Or perhaps the odds would have risen to over 95%, by which time the debate could well be moot – the methane clathrates would most likely ensure there’s nothing we could do anyway. But don’t despair, you could always huddle inside next to your air-conditioner and point out that it really wasn’t fair to attribute all of the methane release to AGW!…

This goes to George Monbiot’s question – can we really convince people of something they just don’t want to believe by rational argument? If you don’t believe now there’s never going to be enough evidence to convince you – in the real world it’s always going to be a balance of probabilities (already overwhelming) issue, and there’ll always be a few mavericks and plenty of corporate ideologues ready to give them all the exposure they don’t deserve!

Incidentally I’m glad to hear NZ fares well in the medium term predictions! It’s generally accepted by baking Aussies that NZ and Tasmania are the two most appealing potential places to retreat to – if that notable friend of ‘Lord’ Monckton’s, Tony ‘Climate Change is Crap’ Abbott gets elected later this year, don’t be surprised if you get an influx of would-be Aussie immigrants…

We lack a physical model for welfare and happiness and I dont think one is possible. The same cannot be said for climate. The analogy to me is flawed whatever most people think. When you have a model that accounts for climate and the model says you are in trouble, then at very least you need to do a risk analysis. There maybe unknown factors that invalidate the model, but that is not the way to bet and the stakes are too high.

I think it would be irresponsible to produce a “state of climate” (30-50 year) anywhere that did not state, that to the best of knowledge, the cause of warming is anthropogenic (all factors). The evidence for this is not the local warming but the full global model/validation. We lack any other explanation that make physical sense and fits the data. The purpose of such a “state of climate” is surely to inform?

That said, I notice that the current models (which are weaker in regional predictions) dont expect huge warming in NZ even in extreme 6 degree scenarios.

I didn’t really want to get into a discussion on other factors and the causes of climate change. My main point was that I would like to see a New Zealand version but I would not like to see any warming in that New Zealand versions framed as caused by AGW and AGW alone.

In terms of other factors. I am not afraid to say I do not know what they all are and I cannot quantify them. I’ll give you an analogy:

Q: Does economic growth increase welfare and happiness?
A: It’s likely it does but there are other factors. What these are I cannot quantify but simple observations will show most people they exist.

However, you then claimed “Until we can explain these other factors we cannot pinpoint that percentage”. I contend that while there may be other factors, there is no EVIDENCE for them and that the climate can be accounted for by known factors. I certainly dont want to imply hostility but clearly one of us is ill-informed. What is your evidence for these “other factors”? (apart from solar,GHG,albedo, and aerosol for which was can make pretty good estimates for the percentage).

“A New Zealand version would be great. But keep in mind temperature change does not prove man-made temperature change, it only implies it, but I would still be interested to a New Zealand version.

Do you know how they picked the start date of 1960 for the graphic?”

I am sorry I have upset so many people. My observations are only that:
– Temperature change in Australia does not prove man made warming (temperatures have always changed, and this is regional)
– The start date of 1960 is convenient

The fact that no one on this website can accept these simple facts speaks volumes. If you read through my posts you will see that I have never said that AGW is categorically incorrect. I am simply asking for a little bit of balance and honesty from those aiming to ‘educate’ the public about AGW.

Please stop the hostility. The fact that you treat people who question the truths you hold in this way shows you are engaged in a belief system and not a science.

Do you know how they picked the start date of 1960 for the graphic?

Let’s see,

Since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C . The long term trend in temperature is clear, but there is still substantial year to year variability of about plus/minus 0.5 °C. Some areas have experienced a warming of 1.5 to 2 ºC over the last 50 years.

50 strike you as a nice round number? It’s notable that they finish the piece as follows –

Climate change is real

Our observations clearly demonstrate that climate change is real. CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will continue to provide observations and research so that Australia’s responses are underpinned by science of the highest quality.

Now, either my taxes are paying for a bunch of hyper-qualified frauds to conspire against me for some barely-explicable purpose, or I’m an idiot if I don’t agree with them that it is ‘very likely’ (which means, in science- speak, a 90% plus likelihood, while I’d say that socially ‘very likely’ would be more likely to be see as any probability above 70-75%, and 90% would qualify as ‘very bloody likely indeed!’) that we’re in real trouble and act accordingly.

You’ll excuse me if I don’t view this as quite so much of an ‘interesting’ abstraction, as my home state is covered with some very dark red bits on the graph displayed above (and the agricultural bit where everybody actually lives fares equally poorly in the rainfall stakes), and in the depths of my non-Solomonic subjectivity I have found watching plants and wildlife dying of thirst in some of my favourite national parks deeply disturbing.

Yes, there have always been droughts in Australia, and I can’t ‘prove’ AGW caused this one, but now we know they’re ‘very likely’ to become ‘the climate’ and there’s something we could be doing about that! If we aren’t wasting time splitting hairs about attribution.