Long lost forgotten rain bombs — the BoM yells “unprecedented” while ignoring 120 years of history

[rebewranger]

Long lost forgotten rain bombs — the BoM yells “unprecedented” while ignoring 120 years of history
If Climate Change was a real threat, the Bureau of Meteorology might even look at their own historic records.

When Jennifer Marohasy and Chris Gillham did just that, they found that as bad as the current situation is, it’s happened before:

The wettest day in Lismore was in February 1954.
The wettest year for Lismore was 1893.
There was no increase in the intensity or frequency of extreme wet days at Lismore, or the towns around it.
Now if the BOM looks at this with a supercomputer, they might find an effect from CO2. But if the BOM just used a calendar, like I did, they might find the latest floods started the week after Hunga Tonga volcanic dust rolled across Australia. Maybe that matters?

No one needed a supercomputer to read a rain gauge in 1885, and we have excellent long data. Imagine how handy that might be if the BoM wanted to understand, say, Australian flood cycles?  There are 137 years of rainfall records in Lismore from 1885 to now, but the BOM said we set a new record for Lismore based on Lismore airport where records started as long ago as… 2002.

https://joannenova.com.au/2022/04/long-lost-forgotten-rain-bombs-the-bom-yells-unprecedented-while-ignoring-120-years-of-history/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=long-lost-forgotten-rain-bombs-the-bom-yells-unprecedented-while-ignoring-120-years-of-history

[Smokin Joe]

Using cherry picked short segments of data can produce any 'trend' you want.
Which is why scientists (real ones, anyway) like to use as much available data as possible to put those short segments in context.
What currently pass for "Climate Scientists" frequently scrupulously avoid presenting data that do not confirm their desired conclusions;a presentation that is the hallmark of a charlatan.

[Cyber Liberty]

@jmyrlefuller What do you think of this?

[DB]

Using cherry picked short segments of data can produce any 'trend' you want.
Which is why scientists (real ones, anyway) like to use as much available data as possible to put those short segments in context.
What currently pass for "Climate Scientists" frequently scrupulously avoid presenting data that do not confirm their desired conclusions;a presentation that is the hallmark of a charlatan.

A bit like many of the data sets are based on a starting date of around 1979... A low point in temperatures causing everything following it to "trend" upwards... Never mind that things trended downwards in the decades prior...

[jmyrlefuller]

@jmyrlefuller What do you think of this?

I think @Smokin Joe pretty much nailed it.

There hasn't really been a broad correlation between climate temperature and amount of rainfall. There are some regional correlations in year-to-year temperature and some things (Atlantic hurricanes tend to be more frequent when the eastern U.S. is exceptionally warm) but on a broader, worldwide scale, there is no real correlation. Pretty much any correlation between damage and climate is spurious, due to inflation and/or urbanization putting more people in harm's way.

[Cyber Liberty]

 

I think @Smokin Joe pretty much nailed it.

There hasn't really been a broad correlation between climate temperature and amount of rainfall. There are some regional correlations in year-to-year temperature and some things (Atlantic hurricanes tend to be more frequent when the eastern U.S. is exceptionally warm) but on a broader, worldwide scale, there is no real correlation. Pretty much any correlation between damage and climate is spurious, due to inflation and/or urbanization putting more people in harm's way.