If there is any increase at all in total rainfall - and I will need to check the veracity of that claim because it's obviously a fact that every loony, retired school principal climate changer denier is hanging their hat on
Why can't you guys read what I wrote? The retired school principle was looking at temperature records not rainfall records. And you call him a loony, obviously without looking at his work. It's that kind of attitude which gets you a bad name.
And feel free to check the 'veracity of the claim' but don't make out it's my claim or the temperature studying school principle's claim, because it's the BOM's data, direct off the BOM's website.
And since the climate deniers are so smart - much smarter than those corrupt CSIRO and BOM scientists - how do they explain that claimed increase in rainfall? If the climate isn't changing but is completely static? An increase in rainfall sounds like a change in climate to me.
The skeptics have always maintained that the climate changes, all the time, quite naturally. We all know the climate has warmed since the end of the little ice age, around 1700AD (long before co2 started rising much). A lot of us are quite happy to accept that humans alter their environment too. The point at issue is, how much, and does it present such a serious problem that we should throw economies into reverse to try to mitigate it? You know all this, and I'm heartily sick of the way you try to paint us as fools and malign operators. We are intelligent researchers and well informed people who care about environment as much as anyone else here.
We used to get cold weather coming up from the south in winter (as did WA) and that weather brought the winter rain and cold temperatures. Ten years ago, sitting in my current 28th floor office I saw snow drifting past my window. Now I don't even bother carrying a waterproof jacket in my panniers. And the only real rain we get now comes from the North, not the south, and it comes in Spring and Summer, not winter.
Ten years ago, the planet started cooling down again.
I'll sit and chat about the weather for as long as you like Arapiles me old wombat, but don't forget it is the alarmist climatologists who keep telling us anything less than 30 years is weather, not climate. So the ten year cooling is out of court along with your anecdotes. Can't have your cake and eat it, sorry. On a cheerier note, don't forget Antarctica has had it's winter sea ice extent increasing for 30 years. This means colder and drier air over the southern ocean, and so, less rain from the south. I suspect this trend will soon reverse, because it tends to run opposite to the Arctic, which started recovering 2 years ago after the 2007 minimum. It'll be low again this summer, but that's due to winds compacting the ice. It's thicker this year again.
And, for the record, my understanding is that a couple of the Australians you are being rude to are scientists - and not retired school-teachers.
The retired school teacher is a retired school principle, and not as you call him, a loony. You may see that for this reason, I'm not inclined to take lectures from you on this. As for being rude to Stupid Collie, well, he started it, and continues to make false accusations without showing any sign of backing any of it up with any facts, so he gets the rough edge of my tongue. Diddums. Sue me. Who else? Tony Beasley? I don't thnk I'v been rude to him, I'm just challenging him to talk about the data.
As you said, Australia is a big continent. It's also sitting in a big ocean which is the only one on Earth which has an uninterrupted circulation right round the globe. As such, it can continue it's business uninterrupted for longish time spans without undergoing the same oscillations other oceans do when the speed the Earth rotates at fluctates on decadal timescales. For this reason, long droughts on one side of the continent are neither unusual, or unprecedented. As I understand it, the folklore of the indigenous people had a handle on this a long time ago.