jump to navigation

Climate experts predict permanent drought could end wine industry in Australia March 10, 2012

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

Climate experts predict permanent drought could end wine industry in Australia

News Net 5
March 10, 2012

CLEVELAND – Last night I enjoyed a glass of delicious Australian Shiraz, a 2010 Mollydooker. An outstanding red wine. Big plum flavors with a hint of smoke & anise. In my opinion, the Aussies make some of the best Shiraz in the world. Perhaps it’s because of the often warm, very dry climate where these grapes grow. They are places called Barossa, Adelaide, & Coonawarra… perfect for growing grapes that make outstanding wines. Of course, all plants, including grape vines need water.  But the less water grape vines have during the summer and fall, the more flavorful the grape. The algorithm goes like this: Dryer weather = less water in the berry + more sugar and intense flavors = great wines in my glass.

But, imagine my chagrin when I read today about the impending doom of the Australian Wine Industry due to Man-Made Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Chaos. Here’s what they said in the Prague Post this week:
“Predictions are that if temperatures rise another 2 C, growing vines will become untenable in many of the world’s more renowned wine regions by 2050. One such case is Australia, whose vineyard area could disappear entirely… in such an event, water, not wine would become the overriding priority.”

Read the rest here

Note: Make sure to click on the above link to read the rest of this excellent article. Special mention is made of Australian tax-payer funded climate experts such as Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and that of their predictions of permanent drought, due to man made global warming. And now, a few years later, those predictions are washed out when the worst flooding in centuries has befallen Australia.

Climate realist Professor Stewart Franks of the University of Newcastle also gets a mention. Once you’ve read the above article, be sure to read the article below:

Is it time to listen to so-called “deniers”?

The Land
January 20, 2011

PROFESSOR Stewart Franks, a hydrologist at NSW’s University of Newcastle, warned in a peer-reviewed scientific article published in 2006 that the risk of serious flooding in southern Queensland and NSW increases significantly when a negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation corresponds with a La Nina event.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, given these same conditions, forecast average rainfall last spring!

Read the rest here

The scientists used sophisticated American computer climate models…”we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again” March 3, 2012

Posted by honestclimate in Climate Models.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

The below extract is from the The Age on August 30, 2009, regarding a three-year, $7 million collaboration between the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO

It’s not drought, it’s climate change, say scientists

The Age
August 30, 2009

…But to see what role greenhouse gases played in the recent intensification, the scientists used sophisticated American computer climate models.

When they ran simulations with only the ”natural” influences on temperature, such as changing levels of solar activity, they found there was no intensification of the subtropical ridge and no decline in rainfall.

But when they added human influences, such as greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone depletion, the models mimicked what has occurred in south-east Australia – the high pressure systems strengthened, causing a significant drop in rainfall.

”It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,” said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal.

”In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”…

Read full article here

Just a little over a year later (December 2010), the devastating Queensland floods hit and more recently (March 2012), parts of Victoria, the Northern Territory and almost three quarters of NSW are affected by floods.

Now that’s what you call a wash-out of a prediction and yet they say they can predict the climate in 100 years time!

Above, Brisbane’s Wivenhoe dam floodgate release in 2010.

Above, in 2007, Tim Flannery, who is currently serving as Australia’s taxpayer funded Climate Commissioner said, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems …”

Above, Sydney’s Warragamba Dam on the verge of spilling as “Rain records stretching back to 1886 are set to be broken”

Above, residents in northern New South Wales and Queensland’s southern inland are preparing for record floods as thousands are forced to evacuate their homes.

Weather forecasting is obviously not Professor Tim Flannery’s forte March 1, 2012

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , , , , ,
7 comments

Weather forecasting is obviously not Professor Tim Flannery’s forte

Daily Telegraph
March 01, 2012

METEOROLOGISTS suggested Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery leave weather forecasting to them as the big wet defies his prediction rain would become scarce.

In 2007 Professor Flannery said Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane were in urgent need of desalination plants.

Four years on, Warragamba Dam is on the verge of overflowing and Brisbane last year endured the worst flooding in almost four decades.

After yesterday discovering Professor Flannery is not a meteorologist, the Weather Channel’s meteorologists said it was probably best he left the forecasting to them.

Dam buster as Warragamba is full

“People ideally suited to that are meteorologists. From what I can see on Tim Flannery, meteorology wasn’t one of his specialties,” Weather Channel’s Dick Whitaker said.

A commission spokeswoman yesterday said Professor Flannery was in Germany, but said droughts were expected to become more frequent and “just because it is raining does not mean we should not think ahead and prepare for a drier future.”

Professor Flannery’s statements in 2007 came “in the midst of a record-breaking drought with dam levels perilously low,” she said.

Source: Daily Telegraph

Below, Tim Flannery February 2007 Landline Interview

Sad Settled Science February 22, 2012

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , , , ,
12 comments

Sad Settled Science

February 22, 2012

The big news this week is of course about a Scientist (who coined the phrase “the debate is over“), who has a Phd, who chaired a Task Force on Ethics and who leaked documents of a private institution.

Own Goal mate

A sad, sad day for Science

The science is rattled and sad

A Tim Flannery Cartoon February 18, 2012

Posted by honestclimate in fun stuff.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
7 comments

A Tim Flannery cartoon

There is a hilariously funny cartoon by John Spooner from, The Age (Click here to View) . The Age is normally a warmist publication so it was quite a surprise to see it there.

TRANSCRIPT:

Julia Gillard to Tim Flannery (top picture)
“Tim, sorry to drag you in like this. I’m not that upset that you were so wrong about water shortages now that we’re drowing in the stuff. And how were you to know that there would be no statistically significant increase in warming for the last 15 years of increasing CO2 emissions.”

Julia Gillard to Tim Flannery: (lower image)
“No! I want to know why I pay you 10 times what Bob Carter gets and he still wins the argument!”

The cartoon is in light of the recent Heartland leak. For our non-Australian visitors, the lady on the left-hand side is our Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and on the right is Australian Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery. Professor Bob Carter is one of Australia’s leading geologists and a climate realist.

Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery is very much a joke in Australia, he has a list of failed climate change predictions as long as my arm. He gets paid a taxpayer funded $180,000, three-day-a-week salary for his role as part-time chairman of the Australian Government’s Climate Commission.

There’s a saying that when Flannery tells you that your city is about to run out of  water, move to higher ground and invest in an umbrella company.

Also Construction of the Flannery Centre($7.5 million taxpayer funded sustainability shack), named after Tim Flannery who predicted ”the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems” in a permanently drier ”new climate”, has been again delayed. By rain.

The Science is Rattled February 12, 2012

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
4 comments

The Science is Rattled

February 12, 2012

Climate Science, the most unsettled “Settled” Science, as per below the Science vs the cold, hard facts of reality

The “Settled” Science:
Global Warming means a permanent drought in Australia as per Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery: “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems …”

The Reality:
Severe flooding in Australia

The “Settled” Science:
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past as per Dr David Viner “children just aren’t going to know what snow is…”

The Reality:
Record snow

The “Settled” Science:
The Himalayan glaciers are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

The Reality:
The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years.

That famous consensus February 7, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

That famous consensus

From The Spectator, February 7, 2009

By Melanie Phillips


Yet another example of the bogus ‘research’ masquerading as science that is used to reinforce the man-made global warming fraud. One of the difficulties the green zealots have had is that Antarctica has been not warming but cooling, with the extent of its ice reaching record levels. A few weeks ago, a study led by Professor Eric Steig caused some excitement by claiming that actually West Antarctica was warming so much that it more than made up for the cooling in East Antarctica. Warning bells should have sounded when Steig said

What we did is interpolate carefully instead of just using the back of an envelope.

To those of us who have been following this scam for the past two decades, ‘interpolate carefully’ sounds like a bit of, er, creative calculation. And so it has proved. Various scientists immediately spotted the flaw in Steig’s methodology of combining satellite evidence since 1979 with temperature readings from surface weather stations. The flaw they identified was that, since Antarctica has so few weather stations, the computer Steig used was programmed to guess what data they would have produced had such stations existed. In other words, the findings that caused such excitement were based on data that had been made up.

Even one of the IPCC’s lead authors sniffed a problem:

‘This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical,’ Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research said in an e-mail. ‘It is hard to make data where none exist.’

Well, yes. But then the invention of data that does not exist and the obliteration of data that does exist has been precisely how the man-made global warming fraud has been perpetrated right from the get-go. The most egregious example of this was the piece of ‘research’ that underpinned the entire IPCC/Kyoto shebang from 2001 when it was published — the so-called ‘hockey stick’ curve, which purported to show a vertiginous and unprecedented rise in global temperature in the 20th century.

The problem with pegging such a rise to the evils of industrialisation had always been the Medieval Warm Period, during which global temperatures were warmer than in modern times. So the ‘hockey stick’ study dealt with that by simply managing to airbrush out the Medieval Warm Period and its subsequent corrective Little Ice Age altogether. Some seven centuries of global history were simply excised from the data — because an algorithm had been built into the computer programme which would have been created a ‘hockey stick’ curve whatever data were fed into it.

This shoddy research was subsequently torn apart so comprehensively that it has been called the most discredited study in the history of science (and has been quietly dropped by the IPCC, leaving man-made global warming theory with no more substance than the grin on the face of the Cheshire Cat. Go here, here and here for a history of the titanic battle that ensued over its unmasking). The creator of this bogus ‘hockey stick’ curve was Michael Mann. And guess what? Michael Mann was a co-author of the Steig study of Antarctica.

‘Contrarians have sometime grabbed on to this idea that the entire continent of Antarctica is cooling, so how could we be talking about global warming,’ said study co-author Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. ‘Now we can say: no, it’s not true … It is not bucking the trend.’

And now as Andrew Bolt has noted Steve McIntyre, who with Ross McKitrick uncovered the ‘hockey-stick’ fraud in the first place, has delivered the coup de grace to the Steig/Mann Antarctica claim. Steig used data from a weather station called Harry. Bolt observes:

Harry in fact is a problematic site that was buried in snow for years and then re-sited in 2005. But, worse, the data that Steig used in his modelling which he claimed came from Harry was actually old data from another station on the Ross Ice Shelf known as Gill with new data from Harry added to it, producing the abrupt warming. The data is worthless. Or as McIntyre puts it:

Considered by itself, Gill has a slightly negative trend from 1987 to 2002. The big trend in ‘New Harry’ arises entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together. It’s a mess.

With their reputations thus disappearing faster than the snows of Kilimanjaro, the zealots have become hysterical. Mann attacks a prominent sceptic, Lawrence Solomon, for citing the scientists’ criticisms of the Antarctica study, and is in turn answered by Solomon — an exchange reproduced in Canada’s Financial Post, for which Solomon writes, here and here. Mann repeatedly accuses Solomon of lying. In doing so, he has left himself dramatically exposed. Claiming that Solomon

repeatedly lies about my work

he cites as evidence of this that his ‘hockey stick’ study was

vindicated in a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences

and seeks to back up this assertion by citing the way the media reported this study as

‘Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate’ (New York Times), ‘Backing for Hockey Stick Graph’ (BBC), and so on.

This is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. While it is certainly true that the media reported it in this sheep-like way — thanks in part to the manner in which the NAS chose circumspectly to spin its own conclusions — it is nevertheless the case that in every important particular the NAS actually agreed with the McIntyre/McKitrick criticisms. Far from vindicating the ‘hockey stick’ graph, the NAS said that although it found some of Mann’s work ‘plausible’, there were so many scientific uncertainties attached to it that it did not have great confidence in it. Thus it said that

Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions

and that he had downplayed the

uncertainties of the published reconstructions…Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’

What Mann also does not say in his diatribe is that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ study and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel — which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – and panel member Peter Bloomfield were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:

CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?

DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.

DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)

As Mark Twain might have put it, there are three kinds of lies — lies, damned lies and global warming science.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers