jump to navigation

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: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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.


$30 million supercomputer announced for Australian Bureau of Meteorology March 20, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Climate Models.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

$30 million supercomputer announced for Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Weather supercomputer announced for BOM and ANUA

$30 million, four-year project to create Australia’s biggest weather computer is underway.

The new supercomputing system, being built for the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and Australian National University (ANU), will make weather predictions more accurate.

The BOM machine will have the capacity to make about 1.5 trillion complex weather calculations a second as it crunches through weather data from around the country.

It is expected to provide vital information for future firefighting efforts, and will also help predict climate change in the region.

Maybe, just maybe this fancy new supercomputer would help the BoM actually get predictions correct for a change…

I hope the BoM’s new supercomputer will be more useful than the UK Met Office’s prediction system below:

Why Climate Models Fail December 29, 2008

Posted by honestclimate in Climate Models.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

Why Climate Models Fail


By Ken Gregory

The IPCC used the CO2 forcing of 3.71 W/m2. They multiply this by a feedback factor of 3.08, which boosts the total forcing due to CO2 to 11.4 W/m2. Monckton’s summary shows that 76% of this feedback factor is due to clouds and water vapour (with lapse rate change). But both of these feedbacks are the wrong sign! Roy Spencer shows that clouds cause a negative feedback, not positive, based on satellite data. He shows that modeler have interpreted cloud changes as a feedback, instead of a cause of temperature change. This reversal of cause and effect makes cloud seem like a positive feedback, when they actually cause a negative feedback. But more importantly, the IPCC assumes that water vapour causes the largest positive feedback, but the Hartcode simulation runs using the NOAA water humidity data shows that water vapour causes a large negative feedback. You have seen my graph of relative humidity before which is linked here.


All climate models assume that relative humidity remains approximately constant with global warming. So if CO2 initially causes a small warming, this causes an increase in water content in the models, resulting is a large positive feedback But the data shows a 21% drop of relative humidity at about 9 km altitude, just where the predicted hot spot is missing, directly contradicting the models.

The Hartcode simulation makes no assumptions of how the greenhouse effect works, or how much temperatures changes with optical depth changes. (Optical depth is related the surface radiation flux Su by Su = OLR(1+tau +exp(-tau))/2, where tau = optical depth). Here is a graph showing the optical depth changes over the last 60 years (water vapour and CO2), and the change due to CO2 only.


Look at the pink curve, CO2 only. This is with water vapour held constant and CO2 only changing. The trend (orange line) shows an increase of 1.152 10-4 X 60 years = +0.0069, or about +0.37% in 60 years, confirming our belief the CO2 has a tiny direct effect on temperature.

The blue curve shows the optical depth including CO2 and water vapour. Note that water vapour varies much more that CO2. But instead of causing a huge positive feedback, water caused a strong negative feedback, and reduced the optical depth trend (green line) to 2.58 10-5 X 60 years = + 0.0015, or about 0.083% in 60 years. This means that water vapour has offset 78% of the greenhouse effect of CO2 change over the last 60 years. This is very significant! Note also that there has been a dramatic drop in water vapour at all altitudes in 2008, which is not included in the above calculations. I do recognize that the early NOAA data might be less accurate than more recent data, but this is what the data shows.

This data supports Miskowski’s theory of the greenhouse effect. Miskolcki shows the standard theory uses inappropriate boundary conditions. When real boundary conditions are used, he shows that the atmosphere maintains a saturated greenhouse effect, controlled by water vapor content. I encourage you to review this article, based on a draft by Dr. Noor van Andel. In summary, I think there are two main reasons climate models fail: 1. water vapour causes a negative feedback, not a large positive feedback, 2. clouds cause a negative feedback, not a positive feedback.  See PDF here.

Dangerous human-caused warming can neither be demonstrated nor measured September 16, 2008

Posted by honestclimate in Climate Models, Global Cooling.
Tags: , , ,

Dangerous human-caused warming can neither be demonstrated nor measured

By Dr Professor John Nicol

From Canada Free Press, September 10, 2008

There is no evidence, neither empirical nor theoretical, that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial and other human activities can have any effect on global climate. In addition, the claims so often made that there is a consensus among climate scientists that global warming is the result of increased man-made emissions of CO2, has no basis in fact.

The results of accurate measurements of global temperatures continue to be analysed by the international laboratories, now with 30 years experience in this process while a large number of scientists continue to perform high quality research. The results of these activities clearly demonstrate a wide range of errors in the IPCC projections.


Problems with the Climate Models September 15, 2008

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

Problems with the Climate Models

Professor Michael R.Fox

Professor Michael R. Fox

By Dr Professor Michael R. Fox

From Hawaii Reporter, September 12, 2008

Recalling that people such as Robert F. Kennedy have called climate skeptics “traitors”, David Suzuki calls for their jailing, the Grist website called for Nuremburg trials for them, NASA’s Dr. Jim Hansen calling for their trials for treason, along with the habitual insults from Al Gore, its been difficult for anyone to respectfully dissent. It’s been difficult to stick to the rules of hard science, by demanding evidence and replication, both of which require questioning but are often followed by insults and threats.The world owes a lot to many climate scientists who are closely studying and reviewing the claims of the global warming lobby. They are also attempting to replicate some of these findings without the traditional support of the originating authors. Ordinarily, in the world of hard nosed science, such scrutiny and replication has been historically welcomed. No longer. The well-known name calling, the dismissiveness, the ad hominem attacks, is regrettably now the standard level of discourse. Additionally, these include many laboratory directors, media editors, and Ph.D.s who for whatever reasons adopt the same low roads of discourse and the abandonment of science.

These are difficult times for traditional climate scientists who do practice good science, serious peer review, welcome scrutiny, replication, and the sharing of data. Thanks to the whole world of the global warm-mongers and indentured PhDs, the integrity of the entire world of science is being diminished, followed by a loss of trust and respect.