Skip to content

Claims Of More Extreme Rain In Australia Disproved By Facts

January 17, 2017

By Paul Homewood 


More rain on the horizon as climate change affects Australia, study finds

Australians will need to batten down the hatches with more intense rain storms predicted as a result of higher humidity driven by a rise in global temperatures.

New findings from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, published in Nature Climate Change on Tuesday, reveal that a two-degree rise in average global temperatures would lead to a 10-30 per cent increase in extreme downpours.

The study’s authors predict that while some parts of the continent will become wetter, others will experience increasing drought.

Steve Sherwood, a professor at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW who contributed to the research, said global warming would have a clear impact on rainfall.

“There is no chance that rainfall in Australia will remain the same as the climate warms,” he said.

“With two degrees of global warming, Australia is stuck with either more aridity, much heavier extreme rains, or some combination of the two.


We had a good laugh at this latest piece of junk science earlier, but just what have been the trends in extreme precipitation in Australia?

The Australian BOM has some useful tools for analysing extreme trends (please take note, Met Office).

For instance, we can look at annual total precipitation when daily precipitation > 99th percentile:




Or the annual maximum 1-day precipitation total:




Both show a similar pattern with a peak in 1974, and no evidence at all of extreme rainfall increasing in recent years.

Of course, these only show the average for Australia as a whole, so could hide opposing trends in different parts of the country.

To get around this, the BOM also provide trend maps.

Using the same two categories, we can see that there are relatively few areas where extreme rainfall has been on the rise, and certainly none where the increase has been significant.

Moreover, there does not even seem to be any obvious regional pattern where extreme rainfall has been getting worse.

On the contrary, all of the evidence points to some places seeing less extreme rainfall.






We can also do the same with drought statistics:




Again, the evidence clearly points to drought becoming less of a problem across most of the country, something that is borne out by annual rainfall statistics:





Sherwood might have programmed his models to say that a warmer climate brings heavier rain/more drought, but history says otherwise. 





Full analysis on extremes is available from BOM here;



BOM explanation on how they calculate is here:

  1. January 17, 2017 2:12 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    And one more time for you FLANNERY:

    Australia has another infamous junk-scientist/mammalogist by the name of Tim Flannery, who in 2007 spewed:

    “So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007

    Flannery’s climate hysteria led directly to the construction of four desalination plants totalling $12 BILLION.

    ALL four desal plants are currently mothballed, costing about $1 MILLION/day each to run, under contract, until 2030.

    All dams on the Eastern seaboard are near full. And have been ever since the “rains” returned in 2009.

    More hard proof that there is far more damage done to people’s lives and economies by “global warming” alarmists and alarmism, than any supposed “global warming” (predicted by alarmist, junk-science computer models) could ever do.

    • Jack Broughton permalink
      January 18, 2017 1:54 pm

      Will these paranoid control freaks ever be brought to justice though?
      These desal plants could be donated to some third world countries who have genuine water problems….preferably by the investors who rake in the money from the follies of these fat-controllers!

      • January 18, 2017 3:21 pm

        Spot-on. But in impoverished countries, the relevant monetary incentives are not applicable to make climate corporatist vampire ambitions possible – those being access to massive monetary reserves of wealthy, taxpayer funded first-world countries.

        The climate scam hidden in plain sight.

  2. 1saveenergy permalink
    January 17, 2017 2:17 pm

    Paul, will you stop spoiling a good story with facts;
    you should know by now that 1part in 10,000 CO2 reverses every thing, so more rain gives increased drought & less rain brings floods….don’t you know anything !

    • wert permalink
      January 17, 2017 10:09 pm

      The one in 10,000 is a stupid card to play. The question to be posed is: what the three in 10,000 did and how 30 % more makes a difference. Well, probably not much, but there is a big difference between 30 % more and 100 % more. And there is a big difference between 1.5K and 4.5K. I’m a de nialist and believe in 2x CO2 would lead to less than 2K. But I’m well inside IPCC margins, though.And to you, I’m an alarmist.

      In fact, I’m not, since I believe 2K is mostly for good. And if Amsterdam will be flooded (not probable, they know what to do), none is interested in the religional demographics in Amsterdam in 2100 anyway.

      • January 18, 2017 10:02 am

        Most so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ is water vapour. An ‘x’ % increase in carbon dioxide amounts to a very much smaller increase in the overall radiative properties of the atmosphere. Even that assumes that a CO2 increase won’t lead to an equivalent reduction in water vapour.

      • Tim Hammond permalink
        January 18, 2017 10:23 am

        You can’t be an Alarmist unless you are sounding an alarm.

  3. January 17, 2017 2:27 pm

    Centre of Excellence,? Just how does this paper tie in with that claim?

  4. January 17, 2017 3:10 pm

    I saw the article and thought it worth spreading…

    I think this qualifies as some actual good news – albeit not something that’ll play well with the “climate change drought caused ME /Syria wars” woo crowd.

  5. January 17, 2017 3:29 pm

    Typo alert. It should be “and NO evidence at all of extreme rainfall increasing in recent years.”

  6. Svend Ferdinandsen permalink
    January 17, 2017 5:42 pm

    “Sherwood might have programmed his models to say that a warmer climate brings heavier rain/more drought, but history says otherwise. ”

    It is quite opposite more draught/heavier rain.

    They always get it wrong.

  7. January 17, 2017 6:56 pm

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News.

  8. Tim Hammond permalink
    January 18, 2017 10:29 am

    the “anomaly” chart (surely actually variance from mean rather than an actual anomaly?) appears to show (by eyeball) that the “norm” is large variance. That sort of data will always make a fool of you if you look in the short term and ignore how variable the data can be.

  9. paul bordes permalink
    January 22, 2017 1:10 pm

    New here. Arrived looking for info on confidence interval for land temp measurements. Anyone point me?

  10. paul bordes permalink
    January 22, 2017 1:12 pm

    Also, what is explanation for using land rather than sat for official measurement?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: