Sustainable yield (SY) work can be soon via the following link. http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Water-for-a-Healthy-Country-Flagship/Sustainable-Yields-Projects.aspx
The purpose of the work was to determine how much water could be sustainably extracted from surface water and groundwater sources. Part of this work included estimating what water the environment required.
Another aspect included using The Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisations (CSIRO) model scenarios to estimate what the impacts of climate change would be on water resources. The CSIRO models used IPCC models. See
http://www.ipcc.ch/. Much of this CSIRO work was published around 2008.
More recent work as part of a plan for one of Australias biggest river systems - the Murray Darling Basin - took this modelling further.
My question is not really around the SY and Basin Plan modelling. That's the background in terms of local work that have used IPCC. It was more whether people know what the underlying models are for the upcoming fifth assessment work by the IPCC. Obviously I'm more interested in the Australian models, but I am also interested in the global context, as a concerned citizen and with some influence on policy. Presumably some of it is in the open domain.
Harry, what are prdeictions? I know who KNMI is :-)
Patrick, I haven't seen the regional results from the CMIP5 models yet (for IPCC AR5), and Dewi Kirono at CSIRO would be a person to ask. But anyhow, there will only be marginal changes to the spread of uncertainty in mean rainfall change.
What is more relevant is whether the results were used appropriately. My view is they were not either framed or used well. The baseline was assumed to be the long-term historical baseline (1891-2006?). The mid range decrease by 2030 was 11%. The Murray Darling Basin Authority based their draft plan on the decline to 2020 to be a proportion of this, rounded down to 3%. This was at a time just before the 2010-11 floods, when flows were closer to -40% since 1997. Slight case of cognitive dissonance there, because that was actually projecting an increase from the 1997-2009 period (to 2006 in the sustainable yields modelling, I think).
The Basin was 1-2 years from collapsing if not for the floods (according to Dave Adamson UQ).
Climate change is mostly non-linear at the decadal scale, and using smoothed model results will mislead. The decrease in rainfall since 1997, punctuated by two very wet years in 2010-11 and 2011-12, is probably semi-permanent to permanent. To continue to use smoothed changes out of climate models to infer incremental changes in water resources is somewhere between misleading and really, really misguided.
The floods were very good for the Basin, though costly for some communities. It buys us time to come to our senses and get real about the changes that are happening. Can't see this working - we will continue to blunder along, following misleading 'predictions'.
What are Australian climate chaneg prdeictions??? and how should we know what CSIRO does wothout YOU explainig this to us
look at the upper right of the question page before posing a question:
"Need help with your research?
Ask a question to get quality answers from your peers. Quickly. The more specific the question, the better."
Harry, what are prdeictions? I know who KNMI is :-)
Patrick, I haven't seen the regional results from the CMIP5 models yet (for IPCC AR5), and Dewi Kirono at CSIRO would be a person to ask. But anyhow, there will only be marginal changes to the spread of uncertainty in mean rainfall change.
What is more relevant is whether the results were used appropriately. My view is they were not either framed or used well. The baseline was assumed to be the long-term historical baseline (1891-2006?). The mid range decrease by 2030 was 11%. The Murray Darling Basin Authority based their draft plan on the decline to 2020 to be a proportion of this, rounded down to 3%. This was at a time just before the 2010-11 floods, when flows were closer to -40% since 1997. Slight case of cognitive dissonance there, because that was actually projecting an increase from the 1997-2009 period (to 2006 in the sustainable yields modelling, I think).
The Basin was 1-2 years from collapsing if not for the floods (according to Dave Adamson UQ).
Climate change is mostly non-linear at the decadal scale, and using smoothed model results will mislead. The decrease in rainfall since 1997, punctuated by two very wet years in 2010-11 and 2011-12, is probably semi-permanent to permanent. To continue to use smoothed changes out of climate models to infer incremental changes in water resources is somewhere between misleading and really, really misguided.
The floods were very good for the Basin, though costly for some communities. It buys us time to come to our senses and get real about the changes that are happening. Can't see this working - we will continue to blunder along, following misleading 'predictions'.
Thanks for this. Averages of time series data are also misleading in hydrology & ecology. The basin was partly ecologically altered after the millennium drought, most noticibly through dead trees. It seems highly likely that even if the effects dont ramp up further (but they will) then we are moving to a new ecological state through compounding impacts.
@Roger
I know what CSIRO is and I know KNMI very intimately but I do not know what their sustainable field work is
Please remember Research Gate is here for a general public; when I would have a question on KNMI I would approach the staff involved personally
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change